SIU: Climate emails leaked

Feed our fearless leader to the polar bears before he feeds us to the enviromentelist .

It's great that CNN finally has a story about this.

Don't forget to mention the emails that said they would destroy their original data before they would release it. By an amazing stroke of coincidence, the original data has now been officially reported as destroyed.

This science wouldn't pass muster at a grade 9 science fair.

Oh, come on! Have you read the emails between these clowns? It is clear that the whole thing is, as many of us have said all along, a scam of epic proportions. It is nothing more than the largest tax grab in history, and the money will not go to environmental issues but will go to the big boys who planned and executed this nonsense.

Shame on you for not having the guts to tell the truth. Unfortunately, you can't trust CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, or, quite frankly, any of the major news outlets to tell the truth.

Wake up people! You are about to be turned into a serf.

Hold the BS, Hold the bull, Hold the hype
Show me the data

Oh yes, finally the media is giving some play to this. They tried to ignore it, but finally the global warming facade is falling like a house of cards. Perfectly timed too, as this copenhagen conference is going to pave the way for carbon trading, which is going to make many people billions of dollars in a huge ponzi scheme. I always wondered what the purpose of global warming was. why it got so political. Well, copenhagen is the answer. Just look at how the global warming advocates act. Look at Al Gore's house. He refused to make it enviromentally friendly. It always amazes me....

HIDING THE DECLINE

The CRU statement says:
"The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1,000 years.

"To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data (such as tree rings) ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month."

This is not true. The "evidence", of how the temperatures changed over the last 1,000 years, were carefully chosen tree ring data, at a very small location, supposed to be proxy for (represent) temperatures for the entire world, over this period. When this was taken then the temperatures started to go down, (decline), from 1980 in some cases and 1960 in others.

Dr Jones then said that he had done "Mike's Nature Trick" to hide the decline. Which was to graft the instrumental records onto the tree ring proxy data and passed it on to the other scientists.

Normally if one were to test a hypothesis that tree ring widths accurately represent temperatures and temperatures alone, (tree rings are affected by may factors besides temperatures), and then found that when you entered a period where your assumptions could be tested against actual thermometer measurements, and these did not agree, (your experimental temperatures went down whereas the thermometer temperatures went up), you would say that your hypothesis had failed and those tree rings do not represent the temperatures of the last 1,000 years.

In this case however the graphs of the past 1,000 years, which showed remarkably stable temperatures, and did away with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, were assumed to be gospel and, with the temperature records grafted onto its end, showed a nice hockey stick shape, to show Anthropogenic Global Warming.

A similar "trick" to that performed by Mike (Michael Mann) earlier for his famous Hockey Stick Graph, which in addition had a program that when no matter what data was fed into it, would produce such a graph.

The Medieval Warm Period was a period which was warmer than today, during which the Vikings settled Greenland and Grapes were grown in Northern England. This warmth took place without the help of Anthropogenic CO2 and cannot be explained by the IPCC. So with the help of Michael Mann and others, it was simpler to simply do away with it and claim it did not exist.

Gee, I read about this story during the Thanksgiving weekend. It's old news now. And from what I read, information contained within the "hacked" emails was obtained via Britain's version of the Freedom Of Information Act. CNN and the rest of the MSM seems not to know what to do with this story until now. Thanks for the BREAKING NEWS.

Data manipulation is a serious offense in any academic sense. I'm a business professor, and the effects of data manipulation hurt Wall Street as much as our government policy. If true, this case highlights the prevalence of faulty research, and dangerous conclusions we draw from erroneous models.

CNN has tried to report this three times already. This was more than last week's news. Sounds like someone has an agenda.

I don't believe humans are the sole cause of global warming, but if you live in a major city, pollution and waste is abounding.

If not for our planet, then for us.

Jonathan Pershing says that "the tragedy is the scientists." Don't you worry that the tragedy may be the millions of people who have been fed incorrect data? Rather than being outraged that e-mails were stolen, why not outrage at a scientific body possibly manipulating data? The matter should be investigated.

CNN is just about 2 weeks late on this story. Kudos for getting your head out of the sand.

Glaciers don't lie. They are disappearing. Sadly, ignorance is all too evident. If those that follow survive our folly, they will consider us a pathetically self-absorbed and heartless generation.

there's nothing involving politics involved in climate change – rather, it's all economics. the people with money and power don't care about the health of the planet or it's people, only the health of their bottom line. we're already locked in to a dystopian future. it's now a matter of how bad it will be and for how long, not if it will be bad.

This smells of GOP trickery and lies. How can we believe them when they are still questioning Obama's birth certificate and when they spread lies about death squads to prevent progress on Health Care Reform? They have stooped to a new low, which we should only expect from the Republicans whose only agenda is power grab.

So they doctored the evidence to come to their conclusion in order to obtain Grant and other Federal/Global monies so they can stay gainfully employed whilst imposing their beliefs on society. Which implies no integrity for the facts, and the further spread of socialist totalitarianism.

Non-story. There are two type of people who continue to deny climate change - Those who believe the Earth is 6000 years old and fossilized remains are "lies buried by the devil" and those who foolish enough to believe "scientists" under the employ of Exxon Mobile.

Remember - The right are the same people who for years swore that smoking was healthy for you.

I like the way she asked Mr. Mann about each individual word and allowed him to explain, except the word hide. HHHMM.

Here are the facts. The world climate is changing, There is a good chance that humans are accelerating this change. But whether or not one believes that humans are contributing to climate change, a move to greener energy has numerous long-term benefits to American. Less reliance on foreign oil produced by dictatorships. Less pollution which could lead to less asthma and other lung diseases. A long term drop in energy costs. In fact the only people that really benefit from sticking to the current system are multinational oil and coal industries. They, however, have tons of lobbying money, which means that a lot of politicians (mostly Republicans) will vote against the long term interests of the U.S. for some short term cash. I guess that makes the G.O.P. the pro-multinational-corporate-lobbyist, pro-oil-producing-foreign-dictator party!

Uh-oh...if this is true, then what of Al Gore's Nobel Prize? I'm surprised CNN ran this story. Normally, the liberal media covers up stuff like this...Surely there will be follow-up later with 'proof' that the emails in question were doctored in some way.

Wish you had asked a few more skeptics and not just pro man made warming and those more or less neutral. There really are a lot of scientific holes in the argument for man made warming and we really need to resolve them before we sink trillions of dollars in an approach to climate control that does not reduce warming. File that under the heading global environmental crisis AND totally broke.

What difference does it make if there is really no global warming? What are the consequences if we take action to protect our planet and global warming is a hoax? Probably not as bad as not taking care of the planet and finding out global warming is real! I really do not see how taking care of our environment now is a bad thing. Yes, it will cost us money, but what good will money be if we end up having to live in a toxic environment?

Congrats CNN. Where have you been? This story broke about 3 weeks ago. Now publish the 3000 something emails that go along with this story that shows the world that "Global Warming" or the the new and improved tag line "Climate Change" is nothing more than a fraud and a wealth distribution scam. Leave it to liberals to find a way to tax something such as CO2 that can not be seen, heard, smelt, or even measured.

@michael armstrong sr. TX. – maybe you should go back to school and learn how to spell 'environmentalist' properly before you shower us all with your political opinions, which by the way have no place in a true scientific discussion.

By the way, did you actually read any of the emails, or take a look at the source code? Because I did before I formed my opinion – not that it matters one bit, since science cares naught for my, or your opinion.

Science is based on empirical fact-finding and reproducible experiments, not the bleating opinions of misinformed people. Do you remember that from school?

Welcome to the story, CNN. Nice of you to arise from your 2-week slumber. To the extent there is scientific and political "consensus" on this, it is grounded in shaky data, a subverted peer review process that squelched legitimate scientific dissent, cheerleading media like CNN and self-serving, financially motivated mouthpieces like Al Gore. No, I am not an ignorant, flat-earther, nor am I a Repubican, looking to destroy the planet. I live here, too, and so do my kids. I believe there is some evidence of AGW, but it doesn't support the radical, bankrupting solutions being trumpeted in Copenhagen..which would do more to harm the world's poor than anything nature has in mind. Dig deeper, CNN. Your effort here has been very weak and your motives dubious.

Can we please talk about how the Bush Administration had a policy of changing scientific facts to fit their agenda?

Hmm ... "enviromentelist" - I don't quite know what that means - perhaps "environmentalist" is what you intended to write. But then, you're from Texas - the 51-st best edumecated state in the McUnion.

Global warming/Climate change is a farce from the word go. In the seventies these climate Nazis tried to get us to believe there was another Ice Age coming, but then we had a string of mild winters so they had to change it to Global warming.
It's all about control, and money. That's all it is.

I read the Copenhagen report. It is very sobering; the data comes from many sources. The Report is sound and has been independent verified by the community.
The problem is emails that were conversing about subjects can be misinterpreted. Sadly most of the American public is badly uninformed about the situation thus are more mistrusting because of the beheld beliefs that we can't have a industrialized society and not have a dangerous impact on climate. One must suffer so we can benefit. clearly we need to be good stewards of our own world we have yet to find another world to live on.

A skeptic (of the process, not the climate in this context) might find it quite coincidental that this controversy explodes right before the Copenhagen Conference. If someone were trying to divert attention in a malicious way from the real issues to be discussed, what better way than to hire some hackers and start this "Climategate" tempest? Surely, people who oppose tough action on climate change have the money to buy the best hackers and the motivation to spread confusion at this critical juncture.

Mr. Oppenheimer claims that there are 3 other groups that claim global warming as well. Ms. Braun is asking question, "is this global conspiracy"?

I just remind story of so-called Pentaquark, discoverde by
Spring Collaboration (Japan), HERMES COllaboration (Germany),
CLAS Collaboration (JLAB, USA) . It happened in 2007 and more than 250 scientists were involved, if one counts total numbers of members of collaborations.

So, Mr. Oppenheimer's does not make any point here, arguing that there 3 other groups, or 250 scinetists who supports global warming theory.

I also have other question, how it happend that these guys from East Anglia dumped the raw data?
I spent whole my life in science, it is unimaginable that somebody dumps original data used in the analysis. I am talking with different people these days and everybody laughs when they hear about "loosing the data".

In other words something that will, no matter what its actual significance is or how valid the data, will be pointed to by opponents as a reason to disregard ANY data; and something to be ignored by proponents of reform.

I don't see how any meaningful progress can be made while people continue to simply ignore and denigrate their opponents.

cnn finally posting a story about this leak 3 weeks after it was first announced.

Sorry, I just forgot to mention, that there is no Pentaquark anymore, it disaapeared.

Michael, you cannot even spell a word like "environmentalist". Why on earth would anyone in their right mind listen to your opinions on the climate?

These people only provided 1,000 hacked emails, dating back 13 years. Obviously the CRU system sent more than 1,000 emails in over a decade. The people who hacked the system didn't want the vast majority to be published. Hmmmm....

it is a massive conspiracy..a global tax on carbon dioxide based on a fraud? the sun is not a constant temperature and its fluctuations fall right in step with heating and cooling cycles on earth. sure lets take care of the environment but taxing carbon dioxide is just a scam to make al gore rich...FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! the hockey stick graph = discredited they are trying to scare you 30,000 scientist suing al gore, he cancelled his address at copenhagen, the founder of the weather channel john coleman is suing him? the people who leaked or hacked the emails are heros

This is really unfortunate. There is a lot of legitimate climate research out there that's being overshadowed.

Please frame the issues correctly; it is not about "global warming", but rather about the effect of green house gasses on climate change. The science does not support any significant impace of CO2 or methane on rising temperatures. The basis of CAGW (carbon-bases anthropogenic global warming) is not supported by the emperical data. Indeed, our current warming has been repeated at least three times since the last glaciation, and climategate verifies the attempt of a cateel of scientists to fraudently represent the facts. Further, the signature of CAGW is not there; the hypothesis requires an amplification by trophospheric water vapor, but the data shows a decrease in trophospheric relative and specific humidity at critical elevations.

If CO2 is the global reason, its impact should be uniformally global, yet the temperature increases in the northern hemisphere is four times that of the tropics and of the southern hemisphere. Clearly other things are forcing climate change. I am now watching your presentation of distribution of global CO2; know that this amounts to a variation of less than 4 ppmv, and less than a 4% variation globally.

Please frame the issue correctly; the impact of CAGW vs other sources.

Yes I am a skeptical scientist. Please stop referring to us as denialists.

Wow! I thought news was supposed to be about facts and letting the reader make up their own decision. Other networks are derided as being all opinion. This article sounded like a complete defense rather then a news story from an organization with no agenda. We need the days of small local news organizations that are not big enough to push there agenda's. It is amazing it has taken a week for the major networks to even report on this topic.

For decades scientists across the category spectrum have been amassing deep layers of data indicating environmental urgencies. For the same period of time the media streams have, either inadvertently or intentionally, contributed misleading topic labels--the worst of which is "global warming!" Due to (more accurate) "accelerated climate change" all regions of our planet can expect variations from the normal weather patterns, from slight to extreme, which affects all patterns, e.g. migrations, breeding, producer yields (green plants), behavior, habitat access, etc. of all species! When our news sources speak "global warming" countless skeptics among our population, sensing no great change in their summer patterns (yet), take this as evidence of NO change. Please stop using misleading terms.

I really think 2500 scientists working under the UN and colluding to defraud the U.S. is very possible. Follow the money and begins to seem likely.

It should be noted by CNN, and all media outlets obsessing over this hack for that matter, that the emails that were stolen have not been verified to all be one hundered percent authentic.

CRU has stated that yes, there had been data stolen from a server on campus, but that the data stolen and how much of it was unknown, and the CRU stated that it was unsure how much of the data being circulated around the internet was actually authentic.

Im not sticking up for the CRU, or denying that they may have unfairly produced data that was not accurate.

That being said, anyone who has ever studied or has been responsible for creating statistical data will tell you that frankly, any and all statistical data can be skewed one way or another. Whether purposefully or not.

The undisputed fact remains that the tempreatures of our oceans are in fact rising, our weather patterns are changing, and the rate at which corporations and governments are slashing and burning forests around the globe and polluting the air we breath is escalating on a massive scale.

Whether you believe Earth is getting hotter, or colder makes absoloutely no difference to any of us if Earth in general becomes uninhabitable for human beings. We have the opportunity to change what we are doing now. In another 20-30 years, we will not.

I understand the theories behind the CO2 emissions and the map showed the areas which emitted the most, BUT it did look like Siberia was also resposible? Can you show the other side of the map? Thanks

Has anyone been measuring consistently, the output of the sun?

Let us see the "skeptics" emails for a laugh...

The US & other countries should consider what NASA is doing to our enviorment.You would think all the shuttles be blasted off through space would affect the effects of global warming.Personaly,I think it;s worthless to most people on Earth.Besides, the information they gather only a very few people.Who really cares about the pictures that Hubble telescope takes,or A possible Black hole in space.NASA is just a massive expense that's wasted on things that no one can do A thing about,& no one will benefit from.We have tecnoligy now that few people can understand because out education system has been reduced to it lowest commom denominator. Kids graduate now that can hardly read on a fifth grade level. Respectfully Submitted Frederick A. Smith

This isn't very mysterious. Scientists decided based on real research at the time that global warming was real and dangerous. As these scientists became more important within their own fields they became a part of peer review editorial boards, etc...they decided that scientists that disagreed were not credible. So, eventually, you have a system that creates a consensus by minimizing dissenting voices. Researchers are offered grant monies, prized chair positions, tenure, placement in peer reviewed journals IF they stick to the script. If they dissent, they're not published, don't receive tenure, positions, grants, and have no opportunities to advance and more importantly are left out of the public conversation guaranteeing them a unimpressive demise as an eccentric voice. As for an international influence, if you trace many international leaders of science, you'll often still trace their roots to a limited number of researchers.

Great, just what we need: Politicians who've shown a knack for not understanding science in the past, now manipulating stolen data they don't understand and twisting it until it suits their purpose. God help us if we let people like Sensenbrenner run our country instead of protecting our world. How dare they try to continue to flaunt any shred of "evidence" no matter stolen or out of context, to meet their donators' needs, in the face of reams of well documented evidence they don't understand. Future generations will condemn them.

The debate on global warming is good. It leads to increased understanding of the issues and helps to ensure that we are asking the right questions, conducting the right research, and are evaluating that data correctly. I can't imagine how anyone could argue successfully that we are not poisoning our planet. There is just too much concrete evidence. If you question that evidence, try sucking on the exhaust pipe of an idling car for a few minutes and then give the matter another thought.

I think the appropriate position on climate change is that we just don't know. Anyone who has tsken a college course in statistics knows that you don't extropolate outside of the data. In this case the data we have is from only the last few hundred years that we've been collecting climate data. Compared to the many hundreds of millions, billions even, of years the Earth has been in existence, that short period of time is miniscule. Who knows? Maybe the changes in climate are just part of the natural ebb and flow of things during the time such things have been ebbing and flowing on this Earth.

Michael Armostrong sr.....feed yourself to the polar bears and free us from your ignorance.

Same old story. They gave us greenhouse global warming, weather went on in a pattern of warm, cold, raining and every time not global warming they said it was a cause of it. Just natural patterns of weather.

Aid was suppost to kill us all in 2008 back in 1994.

It means we need to cut funding from doomsday future patterns and seriously grow up....

I don't wanna hear the world will end in 20 years due to the pop tops on soda cans anymore. We proven they are ALL wrong.

Too bad that the real crime here isn't being pursued or investigated - hackers who illegally access emails and then take the emails out of context to further their corporate-sponsored message about global warming.

"Feed our fearless leader to the polar bears before he feeds us to the enviromentelist ."

Good call, the polar bears do need more food to avoid extinction!

The quote "The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC."

That quote shows to what extent people will go to try to distract from what happened. A wrong was committed and someone is trying to discredit those who exposed the truth. During Watergate and I never heard anyone try to discredit those who exposed that wrongful doing. In a time like this an illegal act is the only way to expose the wrongful doing of someone else.

i'm VERY GLAD this non-scientific propaganda about this money scam about the man-made Global Warming has been exposed. *homework- what is the percentage of CO2 in the greenhouse gases? and what % are the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? spread the truth people! don't spew out false and malicious propaganda. peace !

half the country, including this guy, thinks in terms of talking points from conservative talk show hosts.

CNN,

It has been two weeks and four days since the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck reported on the CRU (University of East Anglia) email scandal.

Given the trillions of dollars at stake, what on earth has taken you so long to cover this story?

The tradegy here is that the very scientists trumpeting Global Warming have violagted the Scientific Process and shaken the underpinnings of climate research. Not to mention calling into question their credientials and ablity to continue the discussion.
At this point I see Global Warming as nothing more than a theory that needs to be examined and validated in the light of TRUE scientific scrutiny. The fact that not only East Anglicia, but NASA and Ireland all have issues with their data sets and their transparency.
Not that any of this is going to slow O'bama in the least, this dude will sell the U.S. in a heartbeat for a heartbeat.

Good policy is mindful of science, not beholden to it.

Hopefully the ignorant, gullable and those who have financial stakes in stopping environmental protection will not persuade public opinion and kill progress in postponing the inevitable destruction of our planet. Specially because of one email.

Its disconcerting that science is so politicized. No wonder people are skeptical of "the facts." The facts are nothing more than data manipulated to privilege the agenda of people who are poised to profit from the green movement.

it is very sad to know that people are stealing e-mails these days! They do not have any concience or pride in themselves. But of course we can definately see the effects of global warming all over the world. Take a good example of the weather changes just as one! Do we all have to wait until the tsunaimi is right at our door steps? Please, carry on the good work and make this world well again for our next generation of mankind.Wake up people!

Nasa data shows the surface of Mars rising at a similar rate as earth.
Isn't "solar activity" a more logical cause ?

Mitchell urged people who had become skeptical since the publication of the CRU emails to look at the evidence rather than "a selective take on emails which were stolen."
–So, what evidence would that be? The evidence the scientists WANT us to believe, or the Truth? I know some of these scientists at WHOI who are studying the ice melt phenomenon and even they say that there are some changes happening but that the data is inconclusive as to whether the weather changes are part of a natural cycle for Earth or if this is an irreversible process set to spin the planet out of control. Clearly, scientists just don't know and can't really predict the future weather any better than TV meteorologists, but they get more funding when they create panick. Reminds me of the El Nino scare of the 80's– all a bunch of hot air, so to speak.

Thanks Campell for asking the question I have yet heard asked.
If all we do is clean the air and the water isn't that a win situation?

I cannot believe CNN is propagating baseless news as climategate. I question your journalism if you do not present a balance report.

I am tired of ignorant Republicans using climate change to again attempt to blame Obama. As a real Independent, who declined to vote for either weak candidate in the last presidential election, I place the blame for the whole climate argument on the refusal of big business to use any of their excess profits to clean up the industrial complexes that are fouling air and water all over the globe. Apparently, they don't even care about the future life of their own descendants much less the planet we all use now. Both capitalism and socialism are economically defective and need to be replaced by more cogent concepts. It is time now to do so...

The emails will only overshadow the talks if media organs like yours promote that idea, just as you're doing now.

I've looked - those emails are not a smoking gun, and even if they were they would cast into doubt on just one brick in an entire wall of climate science which argues for urgent action. What argues against it? The bottom line of large corporations like Time Warner.

The need to generate false controversies to drive sales is something that news organizations can hold in check. Can CNN manage that at this important moment in history? Cover all stories - but this one will only overshadow the talks if you make it do so. And that would be tragic.

This article is a perfect example of agenda based reporting. The authors opinion, rather CNNs opinion, is on clear display as the article obviously attempts to deminish the realition of the discovery. Answer one question, if this information was leaked on November 17th, why did it take CNN nearly a month to report on it when less traditional sources have been reporting this since it happened?

As a scientist and engineer, the content of some of these emails is deeply disturbing. Not only was data manipulated, the original data was destroyed or discarded. Reading the programmer notes (also leaked) casts a LOT of doubt on the integrity of the CRU analysis. There appear to be several 'adjustments' in different parts of the data to influence the outcome to the desired result. East Anglia CRU is so central to the entire AGW science, that this leak (or hack) shakes the foundations of years of research. Simply put, we must wait for the independent reviewer to do his work before spending billions on CO2 reduction.

Doesn't change my view in the least. Any language used in emails can be taken out of context.

Anyone who has ever spent any time in academia or, in an industry where research data is analyzed / processed scientifically, knows that what the scientist means by "trick". It basically means a clever technique for solving a problem, *not* a means for trying to deceive people. Anyone with a clue who is honest will recognize that this is, on it's face, a false controversy.

You state that "scientists" assert that the peer review process was not compromised by climate. Please read the climategate correspondence; proof that this was not true. Perhaps you should interview Roger Pielke, Sr, a climate scientist who was repeatedly attacked by these climategate thugs.

Most datasets used in climate modeling are now 'open' or available for public viewing, so the arugment that information is being hidden is simply a lie. Go to the realclimate.org website for that data and in depth scientific explanations of the observed climate data, as explained by a professional climate scientist. Most people and even some scientists don't understand climate science, so many are going to deny what they view as a threat to their well being. We've developed as a species in part due to our ability to use energy sources and so burning fossil fuels has become a way of life and has enriched us (some much more than others, no doubt). So it's no surprise that some people will do anything, including breaking the law, to take part in a campaign to confuse people into not taking climate change seriously. Those in power who are stalling and in denial of the implications of this climate change data don't have the numbers to back up their arguments against lowering greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention the economic threat of a nation dependent on fossil fuels. When the denialist' don't have the facts on their side their only tactic left is to confuse Americans into inaction.

The United States has many of the best scientists on the planet; to abuse their efforts with political spin is not only dishonest, it's un-American. To lower greenhouse gas emissions we need to change how we use energy and how we produce our food...but it's nothing to fear. In fact, I'm quite certain that our air will become cleaner and our economy will grow in the process of moving to domestic clean energy sources.

Let's see....the leak occurred on 11/17 and CNN is finally "reporting" on it, with plenty of "quotation marks" to take away from the validity of the questions raised by the leaked emails, on DEC 7. Agenda, anyone??

Its good we have smart people to tell us what this all means. Taking quotes in context 'used to mean' reading them in the context they were written in. But now it means– read them in the context we explain to you.

This is a clear straw man fallacy construction. Lead with the implication that the expose is valid, then subtly discredit it throughout the article. Typical biased reporting in the guise of objectivity. Shame on you.

If you take the total amount of incoming radiation from the Sun to the Earth (or Venus, or other greenhouse planets) and calculate what temperature the planet should be, it's quite a bit (significantly) lower than the actual temperature. The reason is that greenhouse gases trap heat and maintain a higher planetary temperature than there would be with no atmosphere and a simple radiation in/radiation out system. This is a fact of nature. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, this effect will increase, and the planet will warm. This is not theory, it's fact. It's just how things work. "Climategate" doesn't change essential facts about nature–nature is indifferent.

now smog is blocking sun's rays . it s called blood sun from our holy bible (revelation) says so . our government did not listen or read it . oh toolate AMEN

It's really sad how easily the conservatives are duped by industry. First, they are manipulated by the insurance industry on healthcare, and now Beck and Limbaugh have given them their marching orders for the oil industry. Can anyone on the right think for themselves? Anyone? Can anyone form a thought independently of Fox news and right-wing talking heads?

If you look at how you effect your environment, then you understand what we do as a collective. We take care of our earth as we take care of our homes. What problems do we in our homes, and environment? Health Problems, Relationships, Finances? We have to take responsibility for all we do. Make better choices, create better world.

Climate gate stirred up a lot of controversy the world has to admit there is climate change occurring but could it be natural climate change.

Global warming, I am curious about something, could it be solar activity sunspots warming up the earth. Things just do not happen overnight, when it comes to warming of the earth same go’s for cooling slow.
The sun just went through the most violent cycle ever recorded the biggest sun flare ever recorded this cycle lasted over 16 years (that had to warm up the earth.)

And at the same time the sun was going through a violent cycle. There was a lot of volcanic activity, spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The two combined, warmed things up on the earth.

Now the sun has gone into a more normal and quieter cycle, Things are starting to cool on the earth now.

There could be another factor to global warming, but it is way out there my theory is.
Our solar system, meaning our sun and its planets is going through a transition in our galaxy, moving from the bottom part of the galaxy to the top part of our galaxy.
Right now our sun is moving with its planets dead center of this galaxy spiral we are in 2012.
It could cause a lot of things to occur, magnetic polar shift on earth which is happening now for example causing climate change.

(( I wonder if our galaxy has magnetic polls )) , our sun and most of its planets have magnetic poles, and there has been changes occurring on them as well, our sun just went through a violent event climate change on earth, think about it.

Mr. Armstrong seems to be drinking from the bosom of Glenn Beck. As for our fearless leader, at the rate things are going, he's not going to have to worry about any polar bears with the ice melting.

I just watched Trick or truth.

First you pitted two critics against one under informed pro person.

When McIntyre said (and he knows better) that climate gate saps credibility from tree ring determinations of past climate, he didn't know enoughto point out that the essentially same temperature record for the past 1,000 years has been found by Moberg (no tree rings), Lonnie Thompson (no tree rings) and Esper (all tree rings but no connection to East Anglia Univ. people). So McIntyre's point is not only wrong, but he knows it's only part of the story–not very forthcoming. And what about satellite data which corroborates the surface record of warming? Nobody you interview seems to know much about what's been done in excellent climate research.????

Hey CNN, why aren't you asking who hacked the documents, what their motivation was, and what they got out of it?

Wasn't it just snowing in New Mexico? But the climate is not changing a bit

What about the codes? The emails don't really matter if you check the codes for the computer models. Have those checked or should I say properly peer reviewed and you are likely to fing out they don't work. That will put the "trick " in a different light.

I find the defense that John Hunter quoted as laughable. "The Science is Sound" maybe true, but the science doesn't work if the data is wrong. That's like saying 2 + 2 = 5 is correct because the process was maintained. If bad data was used then the result is going to be bad.

CNN, is this really you? Are you really reporting on the nearly 3 week old story? Good for you!

Well, whadya know? CNN finally decided to cover this story that's more than two weeks old. Welcome to the party CNN! Fox has been covering this since it broke. Where have you been? Hoping it will blow over?

why is the fact that the earth was coming out of the Little Ice Age at the turn of the 20-th century not brought to the argument? what was the driving force in global warming-the industrial revolutionor the fact that the earth was naturally coming out of an ice age?apply some logic!

Great in depth coverage there. You ask the "US Special Envoy for Climate Change" if climategate will impact the talks. What kind of answer did you think this person whose livelihood on this farse would give? Come on.

Just "leak" some e-mails suggesting that it's a hoax. People are stupid enough to believe anything, so long as it's what they always wanted to hear.

It is really sad when politics interferes with science. I always thought it was a scam. They should just release all the data so that it can be analyzed. Instead they are destroying data and manipulating it at every turn.

polar ice caps! enough said

I am very grateful that CNN and Campbell Brown decided to shed some much needed light on the subject of global warming. For whatever reason or reasons, those of us who question the alarmist point of view have been castigated, bullied, and muzzled. Why not open the debate? Why not let sunlight be the disinfectant here? There is one question that I think needed to be answered but I know there is much to cover and some issues or perspectives were bound to be missed. If CO2 molecules trap heat, and must therefore add to global warming, why do the alarmists insist on avoiding the phrase 'global warming', substituting 'global climate change' in its place? 'Global Climate Change' is a useless concept in this debate as far as I can tell. Anyone with even a small amount of familiarity with this subject knows that global climate change is and has always been constant and inevitable.

I STILL don't get it. The Earth has been in existence for 4.5 BILLION years. We're studying the patterns, according to this article, for the last 1,000 years – how temperatures MAY have changed. How exactly does one draw any sort of conclusion of man-made influence over such a short span of the Earth's existence? I have more confidence in the ice core sampling and the case for a naturally-occuring polar shift than a thousand scientists and their data concluding global warming is man-made. Where is the logic, sheeple?

Gee this report is only 3 weeks late. But what stands out ot me is the obvious bias. On one side you have the "Climate change experts". On the other side however the are only referred to as critics or skeptics. But don't worry we should be reassured when the same idiots release their "official temperature records".

I personally put all my faith in BP and Exxon to solve all our energy needs and global warming problems. BP has that eco-friendly, green, flowery logo and Exxon was so kind in cleaning the sludge off of birds and otters during the Valdez spill (which I'm sure they've made sure will never occur again). Far from what these scare-tactic activists would have you believe, the invisible hand of the market is far from being short-sighted and has the greater good of all humanity in the forefront of its endeavors. Plus don't forget that the Bush administration pointed out that global warming is good for crop production (we can probably turn the algae blooms and the additional corn into new petroleum and who cares if some polar bears drown – that's just less polar bears eating our children). It's a win-win all around. Support corporations for the future of humanity!

This sounds bad... but as a researcher in a collaboration, I'd say two things: #1 – anything as important as climate change and government agenda isn't going to be determined by a single scientific group, no matter how awesome they may be, and #2 – context is everything... sometimes a plot comes out wrong and has to be "fixed" by applying a "trick".

Scientific collaborations live to show how the other groups do shoddy research... but as the article states, CRU's findings agree with other groups. If there was anything here, the other scientific groups would be on it like a pack of wolves.

Most likely, the worst thing that maybe is going on here is "doctoring" a figure to keep people from fixating on bad data (i.e. looking at an "uncorrected" set of data which shows something that's not real). If it's worse than that, expect them to be outted by the international scientific community.

This is a continued whitewash by the climate change promoting press. The climate change proponents are payed to generate alarmist material. That story is clearly laid in the emails. Shame on CNN for shallow reporting.

If all these Universities have all this data that proves Climate change is man made, why can't they make it public , by putting up on their websites. What have they got to hide if it's true? Or are they hiding the truth?

Thanks for giving Climategate the visibility it deserves. Better to put the money toward the reduction of real pollution, real diseases, real suffering than on the contrived and corrupted conclusions of Dr. Jones and his criminal cronies.

I liked the show on the Copenhagen UN climate conference tonight and I was gratified to see that the subject of global warming and especially the 'climategate' issue was treated fairly and equally. But I would like to suggest that another 'climategate' be given equal treatment as well. You can read about it from a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists at this link;

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

The truth always finds it's way out......

This doesn't disregard the need to use the land wisely, to be proactive in utilizing God's gift of the Sun for utliity, or to reduce emissions that have caused a high record of asthmatic conditions, grime in the waters, and so forth....But that is human stupidity that can be corrected.

The enviroment is God's territory..he controls what is and isn't....and again he shows the truth....the question is...is anyone 'really' listening.

CNN is just now reporting this? It's been in the news for days.

It's a shame that these scientists have cast such a shadow over environmental research. There is just no way to know who to believe about anything anymore. Environmental research has become more of a religion than a science. Cutting pollutants, whether they cause global warming or not, is a good thing, but asking Americans to make sacrifices when the science is suspect will be a bitter pill to swallow. I don't think we'll see the full fallout of this for some time.

This 'scandal' has been discredited over the past 2 to 3 weeks already.

Please stop referring to climate change deniers as "skeptics". Scientists are skeptics. Climate change deniers are slack-jawed believers of corporate propaganda.

Campbell:

Scientists sometimes have difficulty explaining complex scientific information in simple terms. I am a scientist and engineer. I am by no means an expert of global warming but I think I understand what Dr. Phil Jones meant to convey by the use of the word 'trick' in his e-mail, and I'll try to explain.

Up until the 1980's the observations or equations being studied showed a strong correlation between the growth of tree rings and global warming. After the 1980's the correlation became less strong, possibly because another variable had entered the analysis. All Dr. Jones was trying to do was to zero-out this other variable, to be able to make a valid comparison between 2 different data sets.

This is typically how multi-variant (many variable) equations are solved. You hold some variables constant while you vary another. It's a perfectly legitimate approach to analyze data with many variables.

oh, are we sufficiently prepared to run the story now CNN? you're only fooling the idiots with this global scam, and they're no good to your agenda anyways.

One simple question, would you put absolute faith in your 5-day weather forecast? The US weather serve has been building weather models for more than 50 years and yet the 5-day forecast isn’t that acquired. So do you think a small group of 30 to 50 people working for 20 years building a model, and remember a model is a simplification of the real world, is worth better trillion of dollars on? Just a simple reminder that the last 14K years of earth weather has been very stable and good for mankind but if you look back over the 500K to 600K years of weather data from Glacial Ice Deposits studies this isn’t the standard. So to believe we can influence the global weather is being kind of naive. There are 100s of thousands of factors from solar energy variations to ocean currents, clouds, and way to many to name here but people are putting way too much faith into this belief without more debate. A meter of water and 10 degrees won’t destroy human kind but a Yellowstone super-volcano or asteroid will and I would rather spend money on these areas than global warming.

Conservative climate-deniers will be mocked in a generation for their scientific ignorance and flat-earth position, just as they are today for their opposition to women's suffrage, abolition, social security, and medicare.

By the way, 1000's of e-mails were stolen. If there was some worldwide conspiracy to fabricate anthropogenic global warming, wouldn't there be much more "proof" than one ambiguous sentence? The fact that CNN is carrying this "story" is another sign of our deteriorating corporate media.

For those who don't know anything about computer hacking...you can't get that amount of information downloaded so easy unless it was someone on the inside!! This is a whistle blower! Not a hacker!! Maybe they had good conscious to reveal the true purpose of what the Global Warming agenda is truly about...Cap and Trade/Taxation/Climate Cops/ENSLAVEMENT!!!! Why has Al Gore backed out of attending Copenhagen? Why has Professor Phil Jones stepped down? They're guilty of fraud!!!! This has nothing to do with the true environmental movement which has been hijacked by the very corporations that we've been screaming about from the beginning. Wake up people...it's time to wake up!

If you believe some e-mails that a hacker "discovers," then I have some oceanfront land in the mojave desert I want to sell you. Trust me.

Breaking news alert! There have been some emails hacked from top climate scientists and they may cause some controversy! Thanks CNN, right on top of things as usual. This is really funny.

What do they stand to gain by falsifying the data?

Michael, my friend... Please be able to spell "environmentalist" before attempting to snark on the boards. Thank you.

better hurry, soon there won't be any more polar bears. thanks for the heads up.

The segment on tonight's Cambell Brown's program on the "climategate" controversy where the supposed facts of pro and con for and against the claim of human impact on climate change was pathetic, ignorant, and totally inadequate. You showed one graphic of where CO2 emissions were occuring globably. This was a meaningless graphic. How about the NASA photos from space showing a shrinking of the summer Arctic Ice cap by 40% over the past 15 years; the formation of ice free water in the Northwest Passage above Canada and the Northeast passage above Russia this past summer and in 2008 for the first time in recorded history; the fact that the current level of CO2 of 380 ppm is the highest value in more than 800,000 years and that the peak was never greater than 280 ppm up until 1850 (coincident with the onset of the industrial revolution) and that during this time the natural CO2 cycle ranged from 200 ppm (ice ages) to 280 ppm (moderate climate) required a period of 100,000 years, and we've gone from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in 150 years; that 99% of glaciers on earth are shringing at extremely rapid rates; that the Greenland Ice sheet is melting at accelerating rates that are greater than predicted just a few years ago, etc etc. The media, like you, present the extremely small minority opinion with the same weight as the 97% of climate scientists who say global warming is a real threat. Can anyone really believe that the several tens of thousands of scientists globally, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the EPA, the U.S. military, the National Science Foundation, have conspired to make up a false story about climate change. It is your responsibility to present an objective report and not to distort the reality. You failed miserably.

May God save us from ourselves...

This writer has missed the mark. There are numerous email exchanges that show several "scientists" conspired to manipulate data to get desired results. More damaging however, is the fact that they destroyed the raw data. All that is left is the manipulated data.

regardless of how the emails were obtained, the candid ease at which the scientists discuss their bias, is scary.

Whether the data has been tampered with or not, the focus on clean, infinite, clean energies like solar and wind should be a top priority at Copenhagen. Fighting powerful oil companies will be tough, but once the research breakthrough surfaces, it will only be a matter of time before it is implemented and once we halt our use of oil and coal, greenhouse gases will subside by themselves in the next century instead of the leaders having to worry about taking it out themselves.

It's about time CNN started really reporting on the the man made global warming hoax. Common sense shows us that the world's climate and environment has shifted "NATURALLY" from the beginning of time. I don't think the dinosaurs caused global warming or cooling from driving SUV's and large trucks. This man made global warming theory is absolute non-sense and it's rediculous that we have had to wait for people to see these e-mails to put some common sense back into people.

What a bunch of hypocrites at the climate change conference!!! I was watching the news tonight and it was reported that delegates used 140 private jets and 1200 limos to attend..so much for reducing the carbon footprint in the world....try and dictate what I need to to at the risk of my job, but no change for the elite few

Now you cover this? 20 days late?
CNN is part of the problem–trying to ignore this like it will go away.

Step back from this. The whole mess is about global control and global government. It's about a UN tax.

Michael don't wait the earth to open up literally while your wingnut representative is mouthing off your nonsense in the house.
If all you republican want to believe that this is nonsense then believe all you want. but don't include us with your selfish destructive ways.
It's unfortunate that we have to breath the same air and live in the same planet as you are. your party can pollute other planet not this one.
WE WANT TO SAVE THIS ONE FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN. IF YOU DON'T WANT THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY FOR YOURS . IT'S YOUR PROBLEM BUT REMEMBER YOU AND THE AMERICAN REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE NOT THE ONLY LIVING BEINGS IN THIS EARTH.

"The tragedy is that scientists who have dedicated their lives to this cause are now being pilloried."

Seriously? No one is saying that these scientists are witches and need to be burned. Some people call them liars and the like but they are easily ignored. And by the way, what about all the veiled insults in this articles suggesting that skeptics are both wrong and nefarious in their efforts? All this article does is briefly allude to the skeptics argument and then make repeated attempts to discredit/refute it. Historically this second layer of the article is a lot more in line with history.

Often the "consensus" in science is unwilling to allow questioning of its current view of things. A good example is the deadly effects of fever in women following childbirth, the greatest killer of women for centuries. Its remedy was first proposed and proven in 1795. At least two more times a lone "skeptic" researcher was able to demonstrate how the fever might be avoided or eliminated, and the scientific establishment scoffed at them. Eventually in the early 20th century they caught up, making for the needless deaths of who knows how many women during the intervening century. Science is not about how many scientists agree, or how many studies have been done. What matters is reproducable results and demonstratable relationships. Computer models have not yielded this, and no forecasts of the future will. If current climate science is correct, then show the indisputable (and I stress, indisputable, which has not yet happened by a long shot) proof, using replicable experiments and demonstrable results, of man's connected to climate variations. Then the skeptics are silenced once and for all. Then all you need to do is say "look at our experiment, it proves we're right, and if you're not satisfied, go try the experiment for yourself." That would make for scientific fact, and claims of consensus never will.

I borrowed my fever example from Michael Critchton's "Aliens Cause Global Warming." I recommend it to others. He, like me, does not say Climate Change isn't real but rather that it isn't proven, and make an overall compelling argument about the state of current science in general.

Michael your comment indicates that you are about as informed as the polar bear, though maybe less so since the polar bear doesn't have access to Rush Limbaugh. A suggestion: stick to hoarding ammunition and conservative rags, leave issues of this magnitude to those with more than half a brain.

Oh, and I suggest you sign up for swimming lessons and Chinese at your local JUCO.

First, it's likely that the emails and data weren't hacked, but distributed by someone inside CRU. Secondly, climategate is a lot deeper than shown in this report. Mann's tree ring data does not correlate with current temperatures, and so he didn't plot the most recent data (the decline). Other temperature data shows manipulation without explanation, and freedom of information requests were resisted to keep others from looking at the data. Much more. Think Watergate..

Over two weeks late, but congratulations, CNN, for finally starting to cover this!

So much for "just the facts" unbiased journalism. It only took CNN three weeks to acknowledge that there may be a legitimate argument that man can do nothing about the weather one way or another and that terms like 'global warming', 'climate change' and my personal favorite, 'climate control' is nothing more than rhetoric. These political scientists speak as though the earth's temperature has been static for millions of years and that a glacier has never melted before in the history of our planet. There is also an inherent arrogance in the belief that man can destroy or save the planet. The planet earth has been here long before we were and will still be here long after we're gone. If your so-called news network is so sure that these e-mails are so inconsequential, why didn't you do a story on them three weeks ago. Watching CNN, MSNBC and any major network news makes me think of The Ministry of Information in George Orwell's 1984.

Your report leaves out that they also threw away all the data that was used to come up with their numbers. With that data we could tell who's telling the truth. Gee, why would you throw it away?

Doesn't anyone find it odd that the data was "hid" in another peer-reviewed, published paper, which the authors cited? Sounds like a really dumb place to "hide" something to me. Clearly, this statement, put into context, means something more like "exclude the spurious part of the data from Briffa et al for the sake of clarity".

This whole incident is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, and an act of pure desparation by the deniers. In the meantime, two very disturbing scientific papers have been published in some of the world's top journals, one indicating that Anarctica is now melting, and the second indicating that climate response to CO2 is notably greater than previously thought. Indeed, it is really hard to think of any scientific publication this year that provided any good news with respect to climate change. There were many loaded with bad news.

When it comes to Anthropogenic Global Warming I am skeptical. I don't think AGW is the consensus. There are many within the scientific community who don't agree with Al Gore or the UN's IPCC. It has also been shown that the data and graphs of the rise of temperature of the earth presented by AGW proponents were manipulated and played with. One of these being the well known ' hockey stick ' graph presented by Al Gore as well as others. Debunked. I would love to see some reputable scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory on your show. Richard S. Lindzen the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT would be one of the many scientists who simply disagree with all the , frankly, hype and hysteria in the media, Copenhagen and even in hollywood.

So they're being criticized for replacing old data with newer, more accurate data? As a physicist, I see this happen all the time – people see a word with a certain connotation and pounce on it. In science, a "trick" is not something meant to fool someone, just like a "theory" can indeed be something that is supported by firm experimental observations. Our lingo is not common lingo. Large amounts of independent data show that there is a strong correlation with CO2 levels and temperature, for the past several hundred thousand years. Yes the data is periodic, BUT, and this is key, where the CO2 levels should be on the downward part of that periodic variation, instead, in the past few hundred years, the same period of time where we started burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, they have instead skyrocketed to 2 or 3 times what the amplitude of the periodic trend is. Now, we may not totally understand the relation between CO2 and temperature, but that's EXACTLY why it's so frightening – we don't know where the tipping points are. One of the largest mass extinctions in history occurred when warming from CO2 released in the Siberian traps triggered methane hydrate in the ocean to melt, raising the temperature around 10 degrees on average. It is unimaginably well-established that CO2 absorbs in the infrared, that is firm spectroscopy, and adding it to the atmosphere won't help matters. Sure we can argue about how much exactly, but do you really want to gamble a mass extinction on it? And by the way, the idea that there is a huge conspiracy in the scientific community is hilarious to me – I've never seen people fight as much as I have at collaboration meetings. I can promise getting scientists to conspire would be like herding cats, their egos are too large.

tThe trick was to conceal the fact tree rings after 1960 failed to correlate to the rise in temperature (they in fact declined)so Jones did the Nature trick and substituted actual temps for the tree ring proxy temps. Why? To lead one to believe the reconstruction of temperatures going back in time was reliable based on the use of tree rings for the past 1000s years.If the trees failed to correlate with the temps after 1960 how do we know trees represented temperatures outside the calibration period, By hiding the divergence (DELINE) between the proxy(TREE RINGS) and recorded temps (1960 and on) they could continue with the illusion that tree rings correlate well to temperature.And promote the idea the Medievil Warm Period was not warmer than the Current Warm Period.

I think we all agree that the planet is getting warmer. I am all for a greener world. But it’s the lies, deceit and misleading the public by some scientists and politicians on whether this is man made or not that I'm concerned about. Even NASA scientist James Hansen has NOW admitted the data gathering process is deeply flawed and should be restarted from scratch.

Why wasn't the information discussing the efforts by some scientists who support global warning to "freeze out" scientists who do not support global warming from publishing in major journals not mentioned? The information discussing the manipulation of data and the questions surrounding the seriously screwed up data bases used to support global warming research were not mentioned either. While the e-mail referenced in the article was relevant, it was certainly not among the most important information leaked to the Internet.

I could careless about leaked emails from any leading researcher, or leading sceptic. I do care about scientific wrong doing if there was any, but not about stolen emails regardless of what was written in them. If the Scientist said "This is a hoax and this is exactly how I did it!!" I would not believe that the email constitutes as a scandal. What evidence of laws broken do we have? Don't give me stolen emails. Don't get me wrong I think reporters should investigate and report what they find, but don't call it a scandal. There may be a scandal with whoever leaked the emails, but not in the emails themselves.

This is a clearly a case where the scientist involved are producing cherry picked scientific data to produce the desired results. The data they have presented really needs to be corrected. An analogy of what they have done was to use a miscalibrated thermometer to measure the temperatures and then replaced the undesirable results with readings using another thermometer. Either you use the same thermometer for the entire data series or you have to throw out the conclusion with the data.

First, let's define the word "trick." Dictionary. com says: Trick – a crafty or underhanded device, maneuver, stratagem, or the like, intended to deceive or cheat; artifice; ruse; wile.

What can the words "hide the decline" mean? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Can these psuedo-scientiests produce an article without the word "robust?' The science is anything but roubust.

The pirated emails were no more hand-picked than the manipulated data.

It's political climatology at it's worst.

The opponents have reached no more a low level (as described in the story) than those who published the manipulated data. Shame on the scientists.

Cambell,
l watched the first part of your report and I think that you need to help your audiance understand the difference between how science uses the term theory as opposed to how the term is used in everyday language. A theory in science is not a random, tenuous, guess that is easily dismissed as we might use the term in our everyday language. Scientific theory as in climate theory is an explaination of natural events based on obserable facts, data and proven hypothises. People need to understand the difference.

Even if the 'climategate' conspiracy were true, which it's not, but let's assume it is...would someone please explain to me what good there is in not reducing our emissions? What's this horrible risk we are taking if we try to take better care of the environment? If we can do something about how much we exploit the environment, and we can, then we should. What's so bad about considering that what we do, regardless of how time sensitive, is going to have some negative impact on future generations? We can at least try. Would someone back me up on this?

EPA says last six years measured global average temperatures have gone down one degree. I think that's called global cooling.

For everyone else’s edification, in case you weren’t aware, Gavin Schmidt is an employee of NASA and apparently he’s been spending odious amounts of time on the Real Climate website. It’s a non-government funded website that was set up to respond to those “Contrarian’s” as Mike Mann refers to them in his e-mails. But Gavin seems to be able to spend quite of bit of time there.

Have the hours he’s been spending on Real Climate (a non-government website) been on his own time? We don’t know! That’s just more of the data that NASA refuses to release. I suggest you ask Brooke, I’m sure she asked Gavin about it while she was with him.

This is all immaterial argument without the data and the computer codes which gave the climate model its parameters to calculate climate change ( formerly global warming ) is "man made", as opposed to a natural climate cycle. – Why has the data and the computer model not been subjected to full scientific analysis and debate from all sides of the argument.

Also, MAGICC/SCENGEN, the software used to work out the climate model, allows any person trained and 'untrained', to enter any parameters. Who's to say some of the data has not been incorrectly entered. Also, the CRU was broken in to many times. Has anyone bothered to check whether the data was altered or manipulated. They even say the earth has been 'cooling' and eminent scientists say we are more likely heading toward a mini ice-age. This is why they switched the claim from GW to CC. – What next? Well the say there's a lack of salt in the oceans and that will lead to climate change.

These guys cannot have it all ways without an argument with the thousands of scientists who disagree with their findings otherwise science itself will not be believed. Politics should stay out of it until the scientific case is completely settled.

To whom it may concern,
Why were no facts revealed in the climate change investigation numerically? There were no statistical facts regarding the actual climate; and it seemed the most focus was biased and focused towards discrediting anyone.

I read that global gases take up 3%of the atmosphere. Of that 3%; only 3% is caused by humans. Why, was that not covered in your "interview"??????????
Best,
An actual intelligent person

I wonder, if scientists were advanced as modern day, would they currently be complaining about global freezing during the Ice Age? I wouldn't doubt it, though, since that happened without people trying to say that it was unnatural and pointing fingers at human's it's just a natural climate change... how is global warming not, necessarily, the exact opposite of global cooling. In that aspect, we're debating the ability for Earth to change climate naturally, in which case we are debating whether the Ice Age, in turn, was caused by humans during the time or not as well. I, personally, think that global warming is as natural as global warming. I'm sure it's been warming since the end of the Ice Age, right?

Why don't people look at the obvious? Maybe global warming has something to do with that big shinny thing in the sky called the Sun. In the late 1800s it was hot enough to melt telegraph wires. This was before the so called green house effect. It was due to Sun spots. We have been in a ten year global cooling period. There are more polar bears today than ever. Their science is bad. Al Gore (has a college degree in English not hard science) and he is the guru of ecology. His documentary has proven mistakes. Scientist who do not agree with the green house gas theory are punished. You ask what would drive a conspiracy? Politics. The drive for world wide government and wealth redistribution. This global climate change is a hoax. An evil one at that.

State of Fear a book by , Michael Crichton. It's to bad M.C. is dead. Here is the last part of a review on his book in 2004: Part of the fun is that, for the first 400 pages or so, Crichton wants you to think of him as a right-wing nut. Don't be fooled. He's not just deflating global-warming environmentalists. When he finally gets around to explaining what he means by "state of fear," it's in another character-sputtered rant on "the way modern society works — by the constant creation of fear" by politicians, lawyers, and the media. Michael Moore, who made the same point in Bowling for Columbine, could've written the passage. State of Fear is one of Crichton's best because it's as hard to pigeonhole as greenhouse gas but certainly heats up the room.

"Feed our fearless leader to the polar bears before he feeds us to the enviromentelist ."

What kind of daft comment is this?

As a scientist and data analyst, I have no objection to the word "trick" in one email of >1,000. Also I understand that in complex data analysis you slice-and-dice data to look for patterns. What I think DOES require explanation was i) the commentary on withholding papers and ii) the "fudge factor" employed on one set of data which to me looked very suspicious.

I also think the theft of the emails, the timing of their release, the way they were interpreted and the campaigning with them are all highly questionable.

Does this change my views on climate change? No – I still believe it's critical, very probably man-influenced, and that many actions need to be taken regarding this planet for environmental reasons both local and global.

This is regarding the climate change. Just because the republicans think that climate change is false , people think the same way they do because they believe in what they say. People should do their won research instead of listening to others that really have no idea in what they are talking about. We have let other govenments go into the forsets in the Amazon to cut down trees. Cutting down those trees have caused the air to be poor. Does anyone know that this it a great way to also make jobs for people. We need to start going green and making other forms of energy. Where I leave the air is very bad due to the plants leting out poor quitaty. They have polluted the water in our area plus caused cancer to some of people who live in our area. Has anyone looked to see what strip mining has done to our state??? It has poisend out streams. I lived in St. Thomas for a year and in that time we never had hurricanes now look at the island all of the Hurricanes. The disapace of glacier that break In stead of believing om what the polictians, do your own research!!!! I'm tired of people not doing their own research but just listening to what our polications say. This wouldn't be the first time that we have been lied to regarding anything the say. The republican just want to make a name for themselves. SO, PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARH. It is sad that our own chidren can see what is happenign to the world. My son, when he was second grade, could see what was going on in our plant. We can't think on our own. Iam not replican or demorcat but an inpendant.

Campbell, Difficult to keep short. Am a 71 retired Yale Ph.D. in Phys. Chem. with over 43 years experience in energy R&D, although not in climate science. No one is able to obtain conclusive answers to anthropological warming. But we do know that the uncertainty of any of the predictions is enormous – over 50% on many aspects of the issue. Current warming advocates and CNN are ignoring these uncertainties. You are also not asking nearly the right questions. One real question is how far should society go in pursuing such an improbable outcome when it will cause untold destruction in standard of living. Some of the technical issues you did not touch on: rate constants in these models are sometimes only known within a factor of 10, if at all; sunspots and other effects can mask the small contribution from man by a large amount and in an unpredictable ways; as CO2 is generated by man it can be consumed in many poorly understood ways (e.g., by making the amazon forests grow faster); the data of often incomplete, partial, and sometimes not accurate; the model's complexity is a refuge from reality (much more complex than the weather and we know how that works.) Other well known issues exist as well – talk with MIT. I hope CNN will begin to address this issue more carefully, but thanks for trying.

Making a mountain out of a molehill, much of this is driven by the anti-environmental lobby, check out :http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry

the real questions should be focused on the real criminality: emails detailing conspiracy to evade freedom of information laws, to falsify expense reports to government agencies, to structure international payments to russian scientists to evade taxation and reporting laws.

As for "hiding the decline", they were hiding the divergence after 1960 because any divergence from the temperature record discredits tree rings widths as a reliable proxy for temperatures, and tells real scientists that such a method should not be used as a temp proxy. Instead scientists should be looking at the C14 and O18 isotope ratios in the rings for more accurate precipitation, CO2 and temperature data.

There were also a number of falsehoods told in this report. The scientists implicated ARE the IPCC. They are the gatekeepers for what data goes into the IPCC. When skeptical scientists criticized flawed research that Mann, Briffa, and Jones wanted in the IPCC report, those guys rejected the skepticism. They used threats of blacklisting to force journals to fire editors who allowed skeptical papers to be published.

Mann himself has published several flawed papers in which he took tree ring data from the Tiljander study and flipped the signs of the values so the chart would appear upside down. He has been criticized by the authors of the Tiljander work for this and has refused to fix the "error" or acknowledge it as an error.

Mann and Schmidt offered to Jones to use their Realclimate.com blog to post PR fluff in favor of AGW while promising to supress comments critical of the AGW position.

These scientists all claim their skeptics are "shills" in the pay of "Big Oil" yet theres emails in the leaked data showing that CRU itself is getting funding from Shell Oil. The oil companies are using the AGW issue to get coal energy production shut down to reduce competition so they can jack up oil prices.

Global Warming: Trick or Truth? Sounds like a Fox headline to me. Out of a 1000 emails in the so-called Climategate, it appears that the media and skeptics have gone haywire all over the use of the word "trick" in reference to temperatures and tree ring data, etc. A "trick" in mathematics can be a good way to deal with a problem. It's not about changing data to dupe the world. Global warming – more aptly called climate change (because it's about drought, flooding, changes in preciptation and sea rise, warming in some areas, and cooling in others) is not some grand conspiracy. The science is strong. And if you disagree, ask yourself how strong your understanding is of ecology, statistics, modelling, mathematics, feedback mechanisms, meterology, and climatology? Over 90% of articles in peer reviewed scientific journals concerning climate change agree that it is anthropogenically influenced. Popular magazines plead that the other side should have their say too and print closer to a 50-50% split. Ask any birder or gardener – have things changed in the last 20+ years? The planting zones have changed. Half of our state flowers won't be growing in their states in the next decade or so. Migration dates and breeding dates are changing for some birds. The climate does change naturally over time – that's obvious, but the changes we experience now are at a much faster rate. It is not normal or natural to observe changes in plant and wildlife in such a short period. And if you say, "oh that's the principle of survival of the fittest" then you don't really understand evolution either. Plants, insects, birds, etc have evolved together over time. Due to temperature changes, some pollinators may be getting out of sync with the flowering plants that depend on them for propogation. Early flowering and fruiting has disrupted some species of migrating birds. And humans are feeling the impact too – every week there are stories of communities that are experiencing climate change first hand – islands and wetlands erroded with rising water (Pacific, Bangladesh, Louisiana) and problems in the permafrost areas (Alaska). You can find support for any view on the internet, but if you want a better understanding of this complex problem, please, go to a library and look at scientific peer-reviewed journals and text books. Find a local naturalist (museum, university, park) and talk to them about the changes they've observed in your area over the last few decades. Think critically. – biologist/ecologist/environmental scientist

Motive tells all here. What would motivate someone to steal and distribute these specific emails? Not money, not fame. The motive was the discrediting of scientists who hypothesize that human activities cause global warning and threaten our existence. Who would want to suppress such research? Think about that the next time you fill up your car, turn on a light switch or eat a hamburger. Or you could just ignore that and go with the "scientists making stuff up to keep their jobs" approach. The same way NASA faked the moon landing to get funding.

The conspiracy angle in this story is wrong – which is not to say that some skeptics aren't caught in that trap. There is a reason the emails got leaked (or maybe hacked). There has been a long long standoff between the team that cobbled together the famous hockey stick, and Steve McIntyre. Just go to Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog if you and go back to the beginning if you doubt that this has been going on for a long time. To me the centerpiece of this story is Steve McIntyre's dogged determination to satisfy his curiosity about this odd hockey stick graph that is featured so prominently in the IPCC reports and Al Gore's award winning movie.

On the McIntyre side you have a group following the dogged determination of Steve as he actually does meaningful work on whatever data he can get hold of. On the Team side of things you have a group that has rallied around the infamous hockey stick as an emblem of their righteous fight for the good of the environment (as well as some defense of reputation and dare I say it – funding sources). Let's see what the inquires reveal. It's not just transparency in science that's called for. The public has a need and right to know how these quasi-scientific government sponsored institutions operate. Freedom of Information!

CO2 levels are at the highest levels in the past 800,000 years and rising.

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analysis also shows that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record. The warming period precisely matches CO2 levels which have risen since 1910.

Nasa states that a new global all time temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

Some land masses are experiencing a brief cooling trend, while a majority of others are certainly in a warming trend. The Big Oil company's are pointing to the few land masses undergoing a brief cooling trend as their evidence that climate warming is a falsehood.

To debunk Big Oil's claim that Global Warming is a myth, the Met Office is releasing data from more than 1,000 weather stations that make up the global land surface temperature records.
The WMO uses three temperature sets – one from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and two from the US, maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and the space agency Nasa.

Comparing historical weather station data on such a large number of global surface temperature collectors shows without any doubt that the Earth is in fact undergoing a warming trend with possible dire circumstances to the residents of many country's.

For the past 8 years, the Republican party got everything they wanted and our water, air, and food supply were directly placed at risk.

And as Big Oil puppets, the Republican party members are now attempting to state they 'care' about real meaningful environmental controls and laws?

The Democratic lawmakers need to pass strong environmental laws which curbs Big Oil and their Coal Plants with huge fines on any Corporation that ignores them.

How about we feed michael armstrong sr and the rest of the head in the sand deniers to the polar bears? Sounds like a plan to me.

Anyone believing that man is causing global warming that will kill us all is a moron. Al Bore gets a Nobel for junk science? We saw the value of the Nobel when Obama was awarded the "honor." Joke. Nothing but power-hungry people in high places wanting more importance and money. Striking fear into the people of the world is their forte.

Worse still are the idiots who think we can control the climate and "fix" things. When you know that China and India are going to continue spewing out filth with no repercussions, you have to understand that our pollution output is only a fraction of the supposed problem. Without everyone on board, the "problem" you think exists would never get corrected, by your own rationale.

Thankfully, the earth warms and cools in cycles. The overall warming since the last ice age is a good thing and natural. The arrogance of humans to think we could destroy the planet is laughable. We can affect the quality of living, to some extent, but the planet is going to continue long after we are gone. We will be gone some day, but not by our own hand.

"GaryB – December 7th, 2009 8:20 pm ET
Here are the facts. The world climate is changing, There is a good chance that humans are accelerating this change. But whether or not one believes that humans are contributing to climate change, a move to greener energy has numerous long-term benefits to American."

GaryB get your facts right. Yes a move to greener energy has benefits to everyone, not only Americans (I'm not). But legislation and taxing energy produced by coal, oil or gas is not the way to go.

California is a prime example. Bankrupt, its manufacturing industries killed practically overnight, fled to China or the SW USA. It is still buying the stuff it is not producing anymore but borrowing now to do so. Expensive power and power shortages on the way. Spain – the former poster child of Obama because of its huge incentives for wind farms and solar power (and disincentives for other power), now quietly dropped from his rhetoric because they are broke, their industries gone.

I'm all for clean energy, clean up your coal and oil power plants, as has been done in the west, have alternative energy where its feasible and economical, keep up the research on alternate energy. But dont let people hype their way into grants. Now in the west the way to control pollution,mercury, lead or SO2, is to take CO2 out of the air? Its crazy

China the fastest growing country in the world with the largest cash surplus is adding 2 new coal plants PER WEEK. Coincidence? or cause and effect? They need power for their industries. I just heard some scientist, openheimer?, say on CNN, that the Chinese are trying to reduce CO2 and are committing to it. What a joke. The Chinese are saying yes we will reduce, if you, the US – the greatest debtor nation in the world and Europe, also bankrupt, pay us China with the greatest cash surpluses in the world. If the west is stupid enough to say yes, and their leaders just might be, the Chinese and Indians will take their money and technology and renege on their commitments

For those of you old enough to remember, industry syncophants once said that there was no need to limit industrial discharge into rivers and streams since they were "self-cleansing."

The same type of people are now telling you that dumping trillions of tons of a heat trapping gas into the atmosphe every year for decades is not going to make the Earth warmer!

Katie December 8th, 2009 12:19 pm ET – read what I have written on this way above. December 7th, 2009 8:12 pm ET – HIDING THE DECLINE
Tell me what you have to say to that.

Although this in our hands and is very important issue to the environment, and must not miss this chance.But unless we act now with wit and wisdom we will pay dearly for all of us, and our future generates .Big part of all of us already realize that is something wrong with our planet, but sometimes i also understand that people are very busy with many things, and sometimes do not realize or do not want to know that something is failing ... Very concerned only with themselve.But with nature we can not neglect? All we have to give contribution to our planet ... All ... During 3 years I've worked constantly in all ways and forms, but always for the better , although nobody is perfect, just perfect is God...But i trying to understand the extent to which humans can go. Them on human rights, either in economics or in the middle enviroment.If we can all coexist in peace and harmony? Do we have a future? Does this money ahead of everything? What will be the future of our children? If we really want to live in peace and harmony, will depend on how we train our mind and we look on the days, either by shares or by words, or by being an example for others to see that we really can coexist, have futur.Try ,create, and fight for a cause it is our planet, trying to change the world a better place for ourselves and for our sons.Solucoes times are ahead of us, just that sometimes we do not have the acumen to understand. Again, we must fight like our ancestors did, but now the question that in front of us is more complicated, but we must not drop our guard, we have to fight hard each of us to try to train the mind, if you really want to live in harmoniy.Unit for a cause we win.Yes we can

I agree with most of comments sent. I just heard it in the news...... It's all about politics..."we americans should change the energy matrix not to depend on imports and to "create" 2M new jobs in the US". Why the US did not think about it when most produce needs were sent to foreing countries eliminating jobs on US soil which is the crude reality cause of actual economic crisis? No money no buyers

As was said at a lecture I went to many years ago:

1. The Earth IS warming (wait: don't get on my case yet). The evidence was photos of the Matterhorn taken in the 1800's vs. now. The change in the snow cover is quite remarkable. Mt. Kilmanjaro has lost almost all of its snow and ice cover. Antactica is calving. This is all EVIDENCE of a warming TREND. No doom and gloom here: all I'm saying is that there is a warming trend. It can not be ignored or explained away.

2. The Earth has been MUCH warmer in the past as well as MUCH colder. The EVIDENCE were ice core samples as well as tree samples.

3. There have been, not one, but at least THREE ice ages in the Earth's past. The cooling and warming fluctuations were catastrophic, affected wild life, probably caused tens of thousands of animal extinctions......but life on Earth continued onward.

4. While man DOES contribute to what goes into our atmosphere, so do the gas emissions from the oceans plus other factors. With the oceans covering over 75% of the Earth's surface, we should be considering that also.

5. The sun. This nuclear furnace that is over a million times the volume of the Earth does not burn steadily. While it is still little understood, we do know that, in the short term, it has 11 year fluctuations. There is also a proven association between The Little Ice Age of the 1600's and the lack of sunspots that were being observed at the time. Somehow the idea that the sun has no bearing on the global warming seems, to me at least, to be misguided and foolish.

Conclusion: There IS a warming trend going on. There are MANY factors that can cause this trend. But there is no one cause. Saying that man is the ONLY culprit seems misguided and misinformed. It doesn't give a pass for mankind to "pee in the pool", so to speak. We still must continue to seek out the TRUE causes of this warming trend using good science and leave the politics behind.

And, for God's sake, quit pointing fingers at each other!!! That useless activity doesn't help!!! Get on the bandwagon, do your research and start finding ANSWERS instead of creating "bits" of news and audio.....and fame.

I'm no scientist, but looking at the data, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
it appears that the temperature increases are primarily in large population areas. This DOESN'T mean worldwide global warming. It means that roads, buildings, airports, cars, sidewalks, anything that absorbs and reflects heat may be causing the abnormality. After all, those were built up during the time the temperature readings were taken. In several Chinese cities, it is VERY apparent. Looking at rural data, there is very little influx, so the idea of Global amosphere causes seems unlikely.

I would like to see just how many deniers here can actually understand how to interprete the published data, and whether they have sufficient training to understand what information can or cannot be extracted.

If you think most of the data is hidden in some secret vault somewhere, you are out of your mind. You could have done the research yourself, but you don't have the training.

You can always find a bad neuro surgeon. You can always find someone who had a bad track record, and probably tried to hide it.

But if you think you might as well perform the surgery on yourself because you are somehow just as, if not more, capable than all of the experts, go right ahead and let's see who's right.

Best of luck. You will need it.

"Thankfully, the earth warms and cools in cycles."

Wow! You must be an expert. I'm sure you will be published your results real soon now for the rest of the scientific community to peer review ...

Or did you just pull that one quote out from a pile because it appealed to you emotionally?

Science isn't about slogans. If you didn't pay attention in science class, don't pretend you know this stuff. It is way more complicated than you think, and you are just sounding like some Creationist.

I for one do not know whether humankind is accelerating climate change. But I do know that the "solutions" being proposed do nothing to address the problem.

Cap and trade doesn't reduce greenhouse gases, it just makes companies buy phantom credits and continue pumping whatever gases they please.

If we have to clean the air, why not legislate fewer emissions?? Sure it would put some companies out of business, but if that's what we need then that's what we need...

"For those of you old enough to remember, industry syncophants once said that there was no need to limit industrial discharge into rivers and streams since they were "self-cleansing."

The same type of people are now telling you that dumping trillions of tons of a heat trapping gas into the atmosphe every year for decades is not going to make the Earth warmer!"

OnceUponATime – get real.

1. I am not old enough to remember, so I couldnt be the same guy who is saying that
2.Dumping pollution into streams is not the same as dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is not pollution – it is plant food, so depleted in our atmosphere that horticulturists pump it into their greenhouses to get better crops.

Pollution is things like Mercury, Lead, SO2 and NO2 which we should be cleaning up, but the way to go about it is NOT taxing energy from coal and oil and spending billions on getting CO2 out of the atmosphere.
3. I am NOT saying that CO2 will not make the Earth warmer! Its by how much? Will this be harmful? Cant you get that simple thing into your head? The earth was warmer about 800 years ago, quite naturally and it did it no harm. Then it cooled into the little ice age and crops failed and europes population fell drastically.

If you are old enough to remember some things, maybe you can remember that "Climate Change" took place in your time also? "Climate Change" used to be "Anthropogenic Global Warming" before it changed chamaleon like into "Climate Change". The proper title is "Catatrosphic Man-made Global Warming" – the theory that the Earth will not only warm but this warming will be relentless and catastrophic. The evidence for that is so far not there and in fact is pointing away from it. Natural climate change will eventually overwhelm the slight man-made greenhouse effect and we will cool.

Climategate is huge. It's junk science at its best. FOLLOW THE MONEY, W

Survey after survey has shown that global-warming disbelievers
are generally (but not always) un//under-educated, do not understand
the scientific process and are generally not that smart to begin with.

Its completely possible that this set of data was manipulated but there
are so many measurements taken over many years that there is very
little discord amongst the scientiic community.

What is happening in the US, is that the people who perfer to believe
the bible over the evidence for evolution and the industrial complex
whose income will be affected by this are working feverishly to
discredit those who has spent years studying this and putting
together the evidence.

It is still slightly possible that global warming changes wont happen
because science is not perfect. That wont change my thinking
one bit. You can only work on the evidence you have.

And it doesnt matter one bit if we know if its caused by humans
or not. Given the consequences of what would happen we have
to try to reduce emissions anyway just in case. The consequences
of not doing anything if GW is true are much much worse than
the consequences of doing something if GW is not true. Simple...

Climategate is huge. It's junk science and the only reason it has spread to every scientific entity is money and power (Al Gore). You can not get funding to disprove global warming, only to prove it. The new word is 'Climate change' not global warming because you can always prove that the worlds climate is changing now, just as it has for millions of years. The leaders gathering in Copenhagen have an agenda and they will not let the facts get in the way, The main focus is how to bring down the USA, WITHOUT A SHOT FIRED, and this is one way to do it. The science is" what they want" not actual science. Last summer over 2000 scientists from arround the world gathered in NYC and it was not covered because they had serious issues with the science behind global warming and that is not what the media has been promoting for years.. CNN is a first class news giant and when they have shows that promote the idea of global warming day in and day out they helped promote the fraud not expose it.

In light of the emails that have been released, and seeing how statistics can be manipulated to show what is wanted, why would I believe the data that is being released now?

The skeptics care less about data. Data are measurements and are only as good as the imperfect tools used to collect those measurements. Opinions of course are easy. No data needed. Go with the gut. You gut says Gore is a liberal jerk, your gut says his message is bad.

We sure do not want to look at the data for oil production. The data says we are at peak production or soon will be. Economic theory says when demand exceeds supply the prices go up. However, most of the global warming skeptics will go with their guts on this to, no peak oil to be concerned about, just move along, nothing of interest here.

Address Global Warming and Peak Oil by changing NOW to renewables and conservation. Sit on your hands and both the environment and the economy goes down the tubes with the only winners being the fossil fuel industry that will soak us for every last dime before we die poor and hungry.

If anyone out there still believes that so-called man made climate change is real, then I've got a bridge to sell them. These e-mails reveal a huge hoax being shoved down our throats. The fact that a buffoon like Algore is the leader of this movement is all the more reason to debunk this junk science.

"The drive for world wide government and wealth redistribution."

Where do you get this stuff from? Fox News? Who is behind this Illuminati or secret cabal? Where is their headquarters? You have been watching too much James Bond.

How about doing some real studying of national and global politics for a change? There is a lot to learn from actual history, instead of pay-per-view movies.

"Some people call them liars and the like but they are easily ignored. And by the way, what about all the veiled insults in this articles suggesting that skeptics are both wrong and nefarious in their efforts?"

Hate to break it to you, but on a scientifically sophisticated topic, your opinion is not on par with the climatologists' opinions. Just as Creationists do not deserve an equal seat at the high school text book committee as real biologists, your uninformed opinions do not rank either.

And no, we are not talking about "warming" because if you think "climate change" is about "warming", you need to actually read the Newsweek or USA Today or whatever colorful magazines you think you are skimming. Even these rags will explain enough for you to understand that the enormous amount of energy being pushed into the atmosphere has non-trivial consequences in addition to making you feel a little extra "toasty".

"Yes I am a skeptical scientist. Please stop referring to us as denialists."

You are a "denialist", pure and simple.

If you honestly think that CO2 injection by cars and industrial plants into the atmosphere is guaranteed to be uniform throughout the world, you haven't even bothered to walk to the top of a nearby hill and stare at the valley below you under a layer of orange smog, let alone do some real scientific research.

I call major baloney on your claims of being a "scientist".

You make it sound as if this technique, replacing tree ring data with thermometer records without mentioning that the 1,000-year record is no such thing, is reasonable. Does that sound reasonable to you? You also fail to mention that the last 40 years of the tree ring data showed no increase in temperature at all, which is why they replaced it.

HadlyCRU and NASA GISS have both altered the raw temperature data from which their reports are generated. They justify this by saying that the records are inaccurate due to the Urban Heat Island effect, and that they have fixed the problems. Any engineer knows that this is outrageous. Bad data cannot be fixed, if your data is no good, get some good data. "Fixed" data is subject to systematic error, to say nothing of an active plan to show false results.

This is not bad science, this is not science at all, this is political activism masquerading as research.

Global warming is not caused by man. But man is accelerating the process by hundred of years.

"As for an international influence, if you trace many international leaders of science, you'll often still trace their roots to a limited number of researchers."

Really? You've done this tracing, have you? Please publish the data because I am quite sure tens of thousands of scientists world wide are interested in hearing it.

Or did you just make this up?

"Global warming/Climate change is a farce from the word go. In the seventies these climate Nazis tried to get us to believe ..."

You are welcome to not believe in anything science tells you. Frankly, I wish you wouldn't. Just ignore vaccinations, and pharmaceuticals, and your doctors are probably in on the conspiracy, too!

Just stay at home. When you get a fever, don't worry, the doctors are lying to you. Don't take any medicines! Don't let the drug companies fool you! It is all a trick to make them money!

And when the weather person tells you it is going to be freezing and sub-zero outside, please don't believe them, and just go out in shorts and no shirt. You'll be FINE ... Don't let these so-called experts tell you what to do.

If all the "warmists" have are these lame ad-hominem attacks on skeptics (yes, this is the correct word, not "denier"), they really must be worried.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ..."

For Ernest Hua:

Oh, and I suppose all those paleontologists who debunked Piltdown Man were closet creationists and in the pay of the Vatican, huh? "Experts" can be wrong, and when they are they must be questioned for the betterment of science.

Survey after survey has shown that global-warming disbelievers
are generally (but not always) un//under-educated, do not understand
the scientific process and are generally not that smart to begin with.

Ashok Srinivasan – to settle the argument whether "The Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming Hypothesis" is correct or not, do you think the relative IQ's of the people on either side of the debate is relevant?

An argument rests on its merits, and on that alone.

Your statement is a classic case of an argument by ad hominem. You cannot attack the argument, so you divert the issue by attacking the persons making the argument.

Since, you are implying that those who are for the motion are very intelligent, and so you are too, being one of them, can you use your intelligence to answer any of the arguments I have put forth above?

What the skeptics are trying to imply, but not saying outright because it would sound so ridiculous, is that trees are a better instrument for measuring temperature than thermometers. The decline that is being "hidden" is the decline in the width of tree rings.

The average width of tree rings in any given year is (or was) highly correlated with real temperatures. How do we know? Because when we compare them with actual readings from thermometers during the period since thermometer readings started being recorded until the 1950s, we find that this is the case. This is predicated on the fact that the thermometer is the more reliable instrument, and the trees-as-thermometers are calibrated against actual thermometer readings.

Assuming that this calibration was always the same, this is one of many ways that can be used to have a pretty good guess as to temperatures before thermometers were invented.

Now, there is a well-known problem with the use of trees as thermometers, which is that starting in the 1950's the correlation between tree rings and temperature is not very good. Tree rings are not as wide as they were before; trees aren't growing as fast. This is known as the "divergence problem" because the lines start to diverge. Tree rings started getting smaller and smaller even in years when the temperature was up. The decline that scientists were talking about "hiding" was a decline in tree rings. The simple solution of just not using the tree ring data after 1950 didn't come up in the e-mails. The last decade or two of tree ring data is unreliable but they kept it in the paper nonetheless. What they did is to put on the same graph the actual real temperatures, which come from a large number of thermometers. Who is going to argue with thermometers?

Anyone who thinks that the "decline" in temperature is what is real and that the increase is an illusion has to explain why tree rings are more reliable than thermometers. And if thermometers are unreliable, skeptics have to start from scratch proving the numerical relationship between tree rings and temperature, without relying on data from thermometers.

"This is not true. The "evidence", of how the temperatures changed over the last 1,000 years, were carefully chosen tree ring data, at a very small location, supposed to be proxy for (represent) temperatures for the entire world, over this period. When this was taken then the temperatures started to go down, (decline), from 1980 in some cases and 1960 in others."

Actually there are a couple of dozen series of tree ring chronologies used to create reconstructions of past climatic conditions.

And not all of these series show the "divergence problem" (slower growth in recent decades than one would expect given the warming that's happened). Bristlecone pines in the western US don't, actually, and a very recent paper examining a large number of them shows they show a warming signature much like the warming that's happened in the last decades.

And, of course, there are many other proxies, not using tree ring chronologies, that show the same pattern.

"Dr Jones then said that he had done "Mike's Nature Trick" to hide the decline. Which was to graft the instrumental records onto the tree ring proxy data and passed it on to the other scientists."

As was clearly described in Mann's Nature article. This "top secret hidden hoax" was published in one of the top two most read science journals in the world. Some secret.

"Normally if one were to test a hypothesis that tree ring widths accurately represent temperatures and temperatures alone, (tree rings are affected by may factors besides temperatures)"

Not in all locations. Go read up on Lieberg's Law of the Minimum, for starters. High-elevation and high-latitude stands are often limited by the number of warm days in summer (they're usually mostly dormant except for a few weeks in summer).

This is all plant physiology stuff, research not related to climate science

"and then found that when you entered a period where your assumptions could be tested against actual thermometer measurements, and these did not agree,"

Actually, those that do show the divergence problem do in many cases match approximately 2/3 of the period of time for which thermometer measurements are available.

They're also calibrated against other proxies and match well back through time. You can get reconstructions back about 1300 years without tree rings at all, the tree ring reconstructions take you back another few hundred years.

The fact that they do match other proxies and the majority of the thermometer record makes it very likely that some recent change has caused the divergence problem. Something anthropogenic, like, say, air pollution.

Whatever ... the fact is that the divergence problem, the efforts to verify that the problem is restricted to the modern era, etc, is extremely well known and has been published about in many papers b scientists in many countries for over ten years.

Again, some conspiracy – publishing everything out in the open where everyone can read it.

"(your experimental temperatures went down whereas the thermometer temperatures went up), you would say that your hypothesis had failed and those tree rings do not represent the temperatures of the last 1,000 years."

Well, if you do that, then you're faced with yet another question:

"if they don't represent the temperatures of the last 1,000 years, why do they match other proxies so well, not to mention about 2/3 of the temperature record?"

A more reasonable question, which scientists are pursuing – it's a very hot topic – is ... "what is causing this recent divergence?"

"You can not get funding to disprove global warming, only to prove it. "

Skeptics like Lindzen, Christy and Spencer and other scientists get funding, which disproves your statement.

"'m no scientist, but looking at the data, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
it appears that the temperature increases are primarily in large population areas. "

The satellite data corresponds well with the surface station record, and actually the most rapid warming trend seen in the surface station record is in the far north, where there are few people.

Regarding the satellite data, the only urban community in space is the international space station, population less than 10.

"I also have other question, how it happend that these guys from East Anglia dumped the raw data?"

1. They only have *copies* of the raw data.

2 Most of it is available online, for free, at GHCN.

3 The 5% that's not is available from the various national met organizations that consider it to be proprietary (but will release it to researchers, under restrictive terms).

4. Some of the copies were lost during an office move in the 1980s, apparently. Give than 200mb of disk storage in 1980 cost $36,000 (one RP06 drive from Digital Equipment Corporation, prices from other vendors varied), this data was probably on tape. Things get lost in office moves. If they wanted copies, all they had to do was ask the various organizations who gave them the copies in the first place. The fact that they didn't bother is meaningless.

5. Other copies of raw data are for surface stations they no longer use, because the quality is very poor. In other words, they've thrown out some known-to-be-unreliable stations from their analysis, along with copies of data from those stations. Why is it a problem that they've not kept copies of data they no longer use?

"I spent whole my life in science, it is unimaginable that somebody dumps original data used in the analysis."

Yes, it is. CRU has no original temperature data, therefore didn't dump any original data. That is kept by the various national met offices

"I am talking with different people these days and everybody laughs when they hear about "loosing the data"."

Which, of course, isn't lost.

Here are the facts:

The earth is warming.

Glaciers are melting.

Climatologists need government money to fund their research.

Fudging facts is common practice in all forms of research.

I will one day have ocean front property!!!! Hooray me!!!!!

So, let me get this straight. 97% of the world's top scientists are in a conspiracy to create fraudulent data about climate change? Right. Why? What possible motive could they have? Please wake up before it is too late.

When a politician tries to explain to me the scientific evidence behind global warming I have to take pause. There is an old saying, "What you are screams so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you are saying." – Ralph Waldo Emerson. This is how I feel about a politicians commentary when there is no one willing (Including Al Gore) to present the facts and have open honest debate on the topic. Peer review within the scientific community seems closed off to the general public. If we are going to propose sweeping, potentially catastrophic economic changes included in the proposed Cap and trade legislation we had better be sure. I am all for good stewardship of the planet. However, even if we knew that global warming was fact, cap and trade is certainly not the solution.

Maybe we should "follow the money." I remember the AP describing "an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes, accelerated by the impact of global warming...." (Doug Mellgren, AP, March 25,2007, in the Houston Chronicle.) It was stated that some unspecified experts believe that, of the undiscovered oil and gas on earth, a fourth of it may lay in the Arctic.

The AP points out that global warming makes these resources easier to get to, and that there is a separate economic incentive to ignore global warming because shipping lanes are opening up to commerce between Europe and Russia on the one hand, and Asian and other Pacific nations on the other. To have a convenient sailing route through the Arctic Ocean would dramatically cut shipping costs.

It would take an understanding of human nature, not of figures, to grasp the possibility–or, more likely, fact–that some individuals, scientists included, would try to silence their opposition, due to their sincere belief that the world is being threatened by climate change. They believe that the end justifies the means, because in this case, the end that they theorize really is "the end." That does not change the validity of the argument.

The winters in MO have become warmer since I was a child. There is smog in Calif. China has worse sand storms. The ocean has trash in it. The alps are melting. Nuclear waste is hard to contain. Let's clean up what we can. See if it makes a difference. "Don't be a Planetbug!"

Climate change is a fact. The icecaps are melting, sea levels are rising. We do not know for a fact whether mankind is responsible for 1% of this or 99% of it. It is inconceivable that the amount of CO2 we release could be totally inconsequential in this process, so it would only be prudent to stop influencing the process by curbing our emissions.
I'm not worried, though, because if worse comes to worse, we can create a nuclear winter to counter global warming:) That's what we were all worried about when I was growing up in the 50's.

all you people who think you're "really onto the conspiracy" for a "tax grab" to "make al gore rich" are nuts. You think that there aren't big money vested interests right now who would LOVE to hear that anthropogenic climate change isn't real? (Which it is, pull your heads out of your rears.)

I'm sure these same interests love to have people like you who are willing to jump at anything which offers a hint, yes just a hint, that you might be right in your crazy assumptions. They certainly love to have an army of people who think they're "onto the environmentalist conspiracy" when in reality the current power structure (oil companies and their political cronies) is running the show.

Suck it up and accept the fact that you have to DO something rather than just mosey along and enjoy your life of consumption as is. Yeah, you might have to give up your 4×4, live with it.

When making decisions in life you often have a choice which will be more work, and a choice which will require less work. Almost without fail the choice requiring more work is the better, more rewarding choice in the long run. We have to start having this mentality about climate change. Be willing to do the work people.

All the cries of "follow the money" ring hollow when one considers how much money oil and coal companies spend on a daily basis to try and convince people that global warming isn't a real problem.

One data set that's 12 years old and taken with 12 year old technology and analyzed using 12 year old methods gets thrown into question. Big deal.

The science behind climate change isnt a house of cards that will fall apart because one out of hundreds of strings of evidence (and not even an important string) gets called into question.

People who think this is some scam to create a global carbon tax are ignoring that fact that the environmentalists are urging people to avoid using power sources that fuel global warming.

If I wanted to tax carbon emissions to make money, I wouldn't be telling people NOT to emit carbon nor would I urge them to invest in making non carbon emitting sources of power affordable and viable.

It is clear the most of the CNN readers are unaware of the facts through no fault of their own. You really ought to find an honest source for your news, you are all being tea bagged. Please, allow me to enlighten you.
Through the taking of ice core samples going back many thousands of years. Real scientists have been able to get an accurate history of planetary climate change. The undertaking has revealed some facts. It was considerably warmer in the medieval period than it is now, also the dreaded CO2 levels were higher than also, don’t listen to those XBoxers at the CRU. The reason for this is that higher CO2 levels follow higher atmospheric temperatures, this was also seen in the ice core samples. Did you know that? I didn’t think so…
Maybe the Vikings caused it while they were living in Greenland, you know when it was green. Oh no, that’s right I forgot, we had the mini ice age after that, sorry. The simple fact is if you live in the northern hemisphere, your belief system is going clockwise down the drain… It is science not politics, deal with it. LOL
Come on man this isn’t one bit about Green. Everyone knows Green is the new Red.

I note that you take full text quotes from the Scientists who believe in Global Warming, but take snippets from the emails. The emails on their merit either support or discredit the scientists- the hackers do neither. The hackers did not make up the emails or the data, it seems that scientists did. Science has become a joke. Critical Thinking has replaced the Scientific Method. Critical Thinking suggests- throwing out the data you don't like, preconceiving an idea and forcing data to support it. The scientific method takes an initial observations which help form an hypothesis, then further observation which will lead to a theory or an abandonment of the hypothesis. When I went to school in the 1960's, "trick" was not a word ever used in the gathering and documenting of observed phenomenon. Watch their parsing – scientific consensus – in other words, we have agreed to say this. Hardly science, more like Public Relations. Much of the theory is based on computer models and manipulating temperatures – not observation. Read the emails if you dare. You would run these charlatans out and strip them of all our tax money. You are all aware, the US tax money has gone to the East Anglia Research facility? No wonder the Obama Administration is in CYA mode.

It is interesting to see from this blog that many conservatives read liberal press and watch CNN. I wonder if liberals ever watch Fox and try to understand an opposing point of view?

OK, all you uninformed idiots out there must realize one important thing. All this brouhaha is about one particular dataset. There are many sets of data out there and they all tell a rather consistent tale. That is an important component of the scientific method – independent replication of results. Until you naysayers can logically address this point, the conclusion of warming trends related to increased human industrial activity will be difficult to debunk in the absence of hypotheses about reasonable confounding variables. Your claims of an epic conspiracy are the real fraud here and merely cloud any reasonable debate on this matter. However, I guess we cannot expect much else from a country that is still arguing over evolution and intelligent design as competing scientific theories. Only one of them is a legitimate "scientific" theory (a major criterion being "logical falsifiability") while the other is merely mysticism explicated in scientific terms to serve a religious agenda. Same goes for climate change, but in this case it is the agenda of big business that is most represented and it is the uneducated that are the pawns, yet again, of those with money and power. Good for you Republicans – enough meek souls and perhaps you gain power again.

To all the self proclaimed "scientist" blogging this article, I would say, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is in your lungs. Plants must have it to survive.

Ecology has progressed into a modern religion and if you even dare to question their data or premise you are labeled a heretic.

I would also say you are missing the bigger picture. This ecology thing is a cover to shift national sovereignty to a foreign body. This should scare you. Many other countries hate us and would like to destroy us. Does anyone think it wise to give them unlimited power to tax and control our industry?

will someone explain who or what melted the ice sheet that covered NJ some thousands of years ago?

I'd love to see the frantic CNN staff e-mails for the past month working on "Tricks" to "Hide the damage" and making sure to remind everyone to that the damning evidence may have been "Stolen" because that means it's almost like it's not evidence at all...

The planet has been cooling for over 10 years. Glaciers are still retreating, heck yeah they are and thank God. The norm for the planet is for half the United States to be covered in hundreds of feet of ice. They've been retreating for thousands of years. We're in an INTERGLACIAL PERIOD!!! Glaciers are supposed to be retreating!!! They will generally retreat until the climate shifts and we start heading toward the next ice age!!!

Pascal's logic came to mind as I watched Cambell Brown's show last night. Even given even odds, we do more good by believing that we are impacting the planet through our current habits.

Below, I present a famous quote from Blaise Pascal on the logic behind belief in Christianity and plugged in the variables for belief, or disbelief in climate change:

Paraphrased quote:
Either Climate Change is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and you believe in it, then if it IS true, you've gained a cleaner healthier planet, sustainable energy and a more efficient world. If it's false, you've lost some short term wealth, but you've had a good life marked by making our world cleaner and safer for future generations. If you bet that Climate Change is not true, and it's false, you've lost nothing [maybe increased short-mid term profit]. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be true, you've possibly destroyed the planet and polluted it beyond recovery.”

Actuall quote (for your comparison):
“Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God, heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false, you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell.” Blaise Pascal

From what I understand 1934 was the warmest year on record. The read me Harry file is the one that is really the smoking gun in all this..it is the journal of the guy puting the data into the CRU data base and tells how he manufactured data and data points to fill in the base...If read me Harry is true CRU's data is worthless but I don't hear this talked about much!

Science IS about healthy debate, consensous is not science, Einstein's theory was denigrated by a lot of scientist of his time and Einstein's comment was "If I am wrong it only takes one". Allgera is a leading french Scientist member of French Acadamy of Science and honory member of American Acadamy of Science, and he is not alone, he thinks AGW is wrong and their are many others. Last year a symposium was held in Canada of AGW deniers, very little press coverage, wonder why?

The scientists say they had to correct some of the data. When data is collected form disparate sources and there are inconsistencies possibly due to uncalibrated or less accurate equipment, standard procedure is to remeasure or discount the inconsistencies.

The non-scientists respond with name-calling and hysteria. They say all the data is fraudulent because some of it is inconsistent. Their arguments are as compelling as those who still believe the earth is flat.

Whether or not humans are the cause of global warming, doesn't mean we shouldn't be paying a lot more attention to the way we treat our environment. Regardless of temperature data, we still have the ecology of planet earth to worry about. Let's stop destroying forests and polluting oceans, treating animals like they are not sentient beings. Let's find clean, renewable energy so we don't burn up all the oil on this planet. All these things are a good idea and work toward creating a sustainable life for us humans on earth. Whether or not we're causing the temperature to go up, we are definitely destroying this planet. How about that floating continent of plastic in the Pacific? That's not causing global warming (to my knowledge), but it's definitely wrecking the ecology of that area of the Pacific, and who knows what the ripple effects may be. Just one small example of the mark we're leaving on our world.

Dear Skeptics.

Yes, ALL the scientists are in a MASSIVE conspiracy to...what?

Don't you fools realize it's the scientist who DISPROVES the consensus is the one who gets the prizes? There is no glory
(IE $$, books, appearances on TV, etc) in going along with the flow.

The legendary scientists that are icons were people like Einstein, Darwin, Watson and Crick, Copernicus who went AGAINST the prevailing beliefs of the time.

If I was still in lab I would be drooling to disprove global warming.
But of course, there is no money in science land. Not compared to the financial rewards of say, in oil land or car land.

Dopes.

Climate monitors were caught moving heat sensors to asphalt roof tops and parking lots in order to increase temperature reading. This climate change cult cannot be trusted. It was 1 degree where I live yesterday and the normal is about 40. Those of us without an agenda can see the flaws and what they really want and that is money and the distribution of income. Gore's 21' ocean rise turns out to be flawed data and it is actually 21" if it happens at all. Bogus reports of diminishing polar bears were used. They number 20,000 up from 5,000 in the seventies. This is about total control of our lives and BIG money to be made by the likes of GE one of Obama's biggest contributors, who has been awarded billions in green contracts. This is not about what is good for us or the economy.
Even if the world was warming ,it has been way cooler than this in the past and way warmer when we were not here. This is madness and greed.

Thanks to Campbell Brown and CNN for covering this important story, which much of the media are largely ignoring for whatever reasons. You must be careful however, not to go too far in your reporting as the mainstream of climate scientists will stop talking to you as they have threatened to do to the likes of Andrew Revkin at the NY Times for daring to question their human global warming orthodoxy.

while reading the speach the epa gave on greenhouse gases it made me think and i wanted to pass this on. why want they regulate dumping tons of waste in the water! why dont they even talk about it! how bout the real deadly pollution toxic waste. our kids dont even talk about it anymore just global warming they have got everybodys mind on warming while they dump deadly waste in the water!

The media coverage of Climate change is a SHAM. Yesterday at Copenhagen, it was claimed that 2009 is shaping up as the 5th warmest on record. Must be hot everywhere BUT the United States;

The National Climactic Data Center (NOAA) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/), ranks the average temperatures in the US relative to the last 115 years. Using -their- data, the ranks for 2009 are (115 being the warmest of any month): - November 2009 was warm historically, others were not. NOAA is a government organization and is one of the keepers of temperature data.

Ranking in 2009 of each month (115 warmest, 1 coldest)
Jan – 57
Feb – 89
Mar – 65
Apr – 36
May – 92
Jun – 67
Jul – 27
Aug – 30
Sep – 84
Oct – 3
Nov – 113

I'm not sure how you get 5th warmest for the entire year when each monthly average is significantly below 110 (except November). If you average these averages, then we get that, so far, 2009 is the 60/115. Pretty darn average. If you "hide the decline" by estimating that Dec is the hottest ever, you would get an average of averages of 65/115.

We are being fed selective BS by the media, Al Gore and others. The science is tainted by the CRU data. And now we have no idea what is really going on. If we learn anything, the science is NOT settled.

Right now we have 16000 in a Copenhagen media circus trying to "change the world". Change based on poor methods and tainted raw data. When will the world wake up?

Can we not approach a change to non-fossil energy in a rational way? Must we cloak needed change (stop burning fossil fuel and move to more renewable energy sources) in fear and panic. The scare tactics of Gore will simply result in backlash. Many agree that we need to stop burning fossil fuels. Creating hysteria about climate change is not the way to win the political will.

Without the raw data, anything that came out of the CRU is faith based, not science based. Science is based on repeatability – any reputable scientist would welcome further studies that reach the same conclusion with the same data. Yet, they didn't want this? Isn't that odd.

Climate change may be a reality. If it is, we probably can not do much to stop it within our lifetime. What we are really concerned about is the draconian measures (i.e. Cap and trade) that the current adminstration proposes to impose on our society. I am wary of our foreign "partners" who relish the thought of the United States abdicating its superpower status through economy-crushing measures such as this (not to mention health-care, but that's another blog). Add to this an administration that is in bed with radicals who would rejoice to see our country in ruins.

To Ernest Hua: Have you nothing else to do? You've submitted no data or information to back up anything you say. Maybe you can explain why NASA won't release it's climate date? And maybe you can explain why temperatures in North America have decreased for the past decade? And maybe you can explain the end of the first ice age ?

John,

Obviously you think this is a scientific forum, so you have clearly no clue how science works.

1. I don't have to provide data, as this is not a scientific forum. Real science takes place in boring conferences with people droning on and on about this mechanism and that model, and the people who are trained on this stuff decide among themselves what sounds real and what sounds bogus. They go back to their labs and get they graduate students (a.k.a. slaves) to reproduce some of it, and then months or years later, they might have a conclusion about some narrow area of the topic originally discussed. And then they have to go back and forth with others who have differing results, and they have to re-do or figure out what went wrong.

Notice that in this process, the general public does not get a vote. Sorry. It is not a democracy. It is a place where experts decide on obscure topics you couldn't even begin to understand. You don't like it? Get a Ph.D. and figure it out! No one is stopping you!

2. I never claimed to be a climate scientist, and I don't see myself as qualified to pass judgement on these guys. Some of you don't seem to have any problems pass judgement despite the fact that you have no training in any of this. Do you think that the FDA should just grab random people off the street to be on their drug panels? Do you think your plumber could perform brain surgery on you? Isn't it just more plumbing of a different kind?

Again, the issue here is the self-delusion of the skeptics who think they can get a grasp on what is going on in the science, and it is highly akin to the evolution/creation debate; you can always find a "scientist" who claims evolution is bogus, but watch how sweeping his claims are and how conspiratorial he thinks the entire scientific community can be. Yes, they ALL agree to suppress him. Yeah, that's the ticket ... the ENTIRE scientific community is out to get him. Again, if you think the entire scientific community speaks with one voice on anything, you don't know how science works, so you should just sit back and learn, or just admit you are too lazy to figure it out.

3. NASA will release data that can be of use to someone. It costs money (YOUR tax $$, by the way) to release data. It is not as simple as just saying, "Here it is! Have at it!" Why don't you try releasing terabytes of data for the public to consume and watch your monthly Internet charges skyrocket. Good luck with that. Oh, yeah, there will be thousands of questions from bozos who can't make heads or tails out of the data, because they can't read the file format, or they don't know which column is what, let alone what kind of calibration is required on the raw data set for which device. Again, good luck supporting all of that in your "free" time.

4. For the NTH time, "global warming" is not about "warming". If you think it is about "warming", you have no clue what you are talking about. I have heard all the stupid comments like Dennis Miller's "1.8 degrees sounds remarkably stable to me". Do you have any clue how much heat energy is required to get a global average of 1.8 degrees rise? Where do you suppose all the heat goes? The reason why climatology is such a complicated field is because it is such a huge system, and it is not just the air temperature.

If a huge chunk of ice melts in the arctic, the amount of heat it absorbs in the transformation is just "a little more" than that ice cube melting in your soda cup. So do you have any clue why sometimes, despite the additional heat added, that some measured temperatures might not necessarily rise in the short term? Again, if you don't even understand concepts at the level I'm describing, you don't qualify to pass judgement, as your conclusions are based on elementary misconceptions.

Pay attention in science class for a change.

Re: Phil, from this morning.

How are you so sure that the U.S. is representative of global temperatures? And how about the ocean, which IS warming, and which covers 70% of the globe. Don't mistake (or 'cherry pick') local data and pretend it is globally true.

It seems that there is no interest in credible alternate scientific research that is being conducted. Perhaps there should be discussion of research such as that described in the book "The Chilling Stars" . This book outlines the apparent correlation between cosmic ray bombardment on the earth, cloud cover, and ultimately the earth’s temperature. Why not get those authors on CNN and give some airtime to these Scientists . Perhaps we don’t completely understand the impact of CO2 on the earth’s temperature. Here’s a review of this book. http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/rev331.htm

dhogaza – you have tangled with me before, to your grief.

"Actually there are a couple of dozen series of tree ring chronologies used to create reconstructions of past climatic conditions."

Most of them revert back to the "reconstructions", (a very apt word), of Mann and Briffa, which are based on cherry picking and manipulation of data. One of the most shameful things ever done in the name of science. How can you defend such things. You aught to be ashamed of yourself.

"And, of course, there are many other proxies, not using tree ring chronologies, that show the same pattern."

Yes I know. Again if you trace them back originating from Michael Mann and his "gang".

Such as Mann's "reconstruction" in reading "overwash silt sand" to say that Hurricanes in the Atlantic are more frequent than at any time in the last 1,000 years!

The mann has a hide of a rhinoceros!

I would have thought after his first expose he should have disappeared with his tail between his legs.

Quite unrepentant, after reading tree rings in bristlecone pines, he now comes out with patterns in the sifting sands. What will be next? Tea leaves?

The bottom line. Mann, Briffa etc "did away" with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age on the basis of reading a few tree rings in a grove in the Rockies and ONE tree in Siberia, which do not agree with modern temperature records, but were somehow nonetheless supposed to accurately represent the temperatures of the past 1,000 years, (against which there were no temperature records to compare it with).

As it happens there are other proxies and reconstructions for the previous 1,000 years, and these do not agree with the Mann/Briffa findings, (adopted by the IPCC).

And what are these proxies? They are 771 studies that show that that the Medieval Warm period DID exist, from 458 research institutions in 42 countries which say, the Medieval Warm Period did exist, it was widespread across the globe and it was on the average about 0.75 C warmer than today.

Have a look here for the graphic and details: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

And as for your saying, straight from (un)Realclimate "As was clearly described in Mann's Nature article. This "top secret hidden hoax" was published in one of the top two most read science journals in the world. Some secret." The kindest thing I can say is perhaps you do not understand and thus do not know what you are talking about, because if you did understand you would be part of this misinformation cover-up being spread, which I hope is not true.

"To have a convenient sailing route through the Arctic Ocean would dramatically cut shipping costs."

Now here is one of those arguments that is actually appropriate on a CNN discussion forum.

While I am not a big fan of putting more pollutants in the air, nor am I excited about the increase in severity of harsh weather, it must be weighed against the benefits of a warmer climate. There is quite a bit of political orthodoxy (not scientific orthodoxy) that global warming is necessarily all bad. Yes, we have all heard the down sides. But let's ask about the upsides because you hardly hear anything about them.

Let's face it, we are addicted to oil and gas, and will be for many decades to come. No amount of government mandates will stop that, and that is where the liberals are fighting an impossible fight. Even if you invent a pure electric car today along with ultra-low-cost designs for an all-solar national electricity infrastructure, and you gave away all of the patents for these, and all of the car and energy companies jump on it right now, and the government gave 50% rebates on these cars (no, I have no idea where the money to do that will come from), it will be many decades before you could get rid of most of the gas-powered cars in the world.

So, how about taking a look at the upsides of warming first before condemning it as all bad? After all, you will have to live with it for a while. I know the shipping industry and the oil and natural gas industries are quite keen on what new shipping lanes and what new natural reserves they can tap into if the ice melts. If Sarah Palin's backyard were not under so much ice that she can't see Russia, she might be able to Drill Baby Drill because, frankly, you liberals need the gasoline as much as conservatives do. Not only could you order your customized iPod Nano from China more cheaply, you just might involuntarily acquire a beach front property sooner than you expected.

And if you really cared that much about global warming, then you should junk your car, period, end of story. And that is where the liberals shut up, because they know they can't.

Anyone that thinks continuous global warming past the point of livability on earth for countless species is a paradise, or great, they should look at our sister planet, Venus that has runaway Global Warming.

The hellish conditions on Venus's surface has been known for sometime now, our sister planet is like the earth in a mirror reminding us of how bad things could get if we continue down the same Republican lawmakers corporate greed laden road we have been traveling.

Large releases of Methane Gases are now being observed off the Greenland coast from the Ocean Floor where ancient Methane Hydrate deposits have lain many hundreds of thousands of years. It appears clear the Ocean Currents there are warmer than anytime in many hundreds of thousands of years.

Methane is 20x more disruptive as a greenhouse gas and lasts for at least 10 years in the atmosphere once it is released.

Trillions of cubic feet of Methane gas lies beneath the permafrost in the immense Siberian Wastelands which are warming and releasing that Methane into the atmosphere possibly triggering a feedback runaway global warming condition.

Daniel – Pascals logic – thats a good one.

The general public is extremely gullible, hence the importance of sceptical thought to avoid becoming a victim of scams, conmen and liars.

Campbell . . . Where are the interviews with some of the predominant sceptics? All I am seeing is softball interviews with global warming stakeholders and (shudder) Al Gore. You should not have any trouble locating sceptics, they are listed at the Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/) There are some real points to be made and it does not constitute investigative reporting to only hear one side. Science is not about "concensus" , it is about truth. Let's hear some.

Had a thought about helping finance efforts toward doing Americas part in helping to solve the climate warming problems. Setup donation collection points everywhere, retail stores, gas stations, places we visit on a daily basis and where we could drop our donations toward the cause. This could surprisingly raise alot more financial help than we think. This type of donation could continue being available over a long term and stopped when it results in a good use toward the resolve and efforts of getting our climate under control in the short time left. Of course someone has to develop how how we will use the donated funds. Giving for a good cause is an American way!

Buzz

A. Smith, Oregon – for heavens sake please do not reveal your abysmal ignorance and childlike gullibility.

"Anyone that thinks continuous global warming past the point of livability on earth for countless species is a paradise, or great, they should look at our sister planet, Venus that has runaway Global Warming."

Here are a few differences between the Earth and Venus.

1. The atmosphere of Venus is 92 times as dense as that of the Earth (do you notice a difference?)

2. The atmosphere of Venus contains 95% CO2, ours contains 0.038%. This will go upto 0.08% after a century and may increase to about 0.12% if we burn all the fossil fuels that we have. (do you notice a difference?

3. Last but not least, Venus is 1/3 of the distance closer to the sun than earth.

There was no runaway global warming when the Earth had 10 to 20 times more CO2 than now, for a period of about 400 million years (100 to 500 million years ago), called the Phanerozoic during which there were significant ice ages.

You are like a severely myopic person pontificating on the description of an elephant with your eyes jammed up to one portion of its skin.

dont let them fool us,but be careful the people you work for or the same people that are trying to get this passed.i dont have money for the globalist.

To A. Smith. And I suppose that if Al Gore had lived on Venus he could have prevented that runaway greenhouse effect. (Then again, I'm not sure he didn't.)

"Science is not about 'concensus' , it is about truth."

Wow, yet another denier with no understanding of science. Who exactly would determine what "truth" is if it is not by concensus? Did you actually learn what the scientific method was when you were in class?

Would you choose a cancer drug for yourself that the "concensus" thought was safe or would you choose your own?

Evidently, you think you can do better without having any knowledge of the science. Please try it. Let's watch the results.

So let me get this straight Ed. 31, 486 scientists have signed a petition, claiming to be deniers. Using the same criteria as the Global Warming "deniers" Petition Project, for determining who is a scientist, there are roughly 7,500,000 scientists in the US. That means that a little over .004 percent of "scientists" in the US have signed the petition. Wow Ed, you're easily impressed.

ok, what most of you are stating is that scientists all over the world agree with global warming....and that is true..but its a half truth, because there are just as many scientist saying the opposite. And for as much proof as we have FOR man made global warming there is just as much proof AGAINST it. If you look at the hard facts the planet has not warmed in the past decade. I'm not saying there aren't effects of climate progression occurring, however im not convinced its man made. There is actually more proof through historical analysis for the cyclical system of warming and cooling caused by the tilt and rotation of the earth, volcanic activity and solar radiation. I think we should continue to study, but i dont want to take such drastic measures as to ruin our economy to fix something that isnt broken

To put it another way ED, 1 in 238 scientists is a denier. I'd say the deniers are getting much more coverage than their numbers warrant.

So let me get this straight Ed. 31, 486 scientists have signed a petition, claiming to be deniers. Using the same criteria as the Global Warming "deniers" Petition Project, for determining who is a scientist, there are roughly 7,500,000 scientists in the US. That means that a little over 0.4 percent of "scientists" in the US have signed the petition. Wow Ed, you're easily impressed.
Reposted to correct data.

jon says:
ok, what most of you are stating is that scientists all over the world agree with global warming....and that is true..but its a half truth, because there are just as many scientist saying the opposite.

No there aren't. Where did you get that information?

If Global Warming skeptics are serious about their positions gaining prominence they have to produce the empirical and other scientific evidence to counter the Global Warming arguments. Trying to discredit the proponents of Global Warming by simply attacking their arguments and accusing them of gross manipulation of scientific data is a lost cause.

Accusations and name calling is not a substitute for hard research. Global Warming is a scientific postulate, hence arguments and counter-arguments have to be based on rigorous scientific research.

It's far easier to sell snow to an Eskimo than to convince folks like me that 97% of the scientists, from several different countries, are a part of a grand conspiracy to promote a farce of this magnitude.

Consensus at one time was that the world was flat. Consensus at one time was that the planets revolved around the sun....and so on. So consensus does not mean truth. Many who have practiced "science" have been gifted with underwhelming intellect, and that is no less true today. I don't remember science ever being a democracy or truth being a question of whether the majority believe it instead of it being a fact. One of the determinants of intellect is the ability to transcend whatever consensus reality is being studied. It may take a long time for the truth that a great mind perceives to become part of the "consensus reality," but eventually reason always prevails. The history of science is replete with instances of changed consensus. That said, in this particular case, I believe that the consensus is correct.

I meant to say that consensus at one time was that the planets revolved around the earth....the consensus today is that they revolve around the sun.

I notice that the pundits, like the radio geniuses, will note any cold temperature extreme, such as an unusually severe cold front or storm, and use that as "proof" that global warming is a hoax. I notice arguments in this forum about extremes, such as which recent years were more extreme, but the fact is that individual measurements, individual years or events are totally meaningless, except to what I think of as an "arithmentic" mind (as opposed to an algebraic or a differential mind).

To understand that measurements are only meaningful in the aggregate requires more than a simple, or Rushian, mind.

The question is whether what we are observing now is different than what would be occurring in the abscence of mankind. It is a difficult question to answer because there are so many trends, megatrends and minor trends in climate.

The nay-sayers don't believe that the question is worth considering because of the belief that man is not capable of influencing something as major as the earth's climate, an idea that is built into most of our thinking: we are puny individually, the earth is big; we couldn't possibly have any effect. And, throughout human history, we couldn't...and didn't. But we need to think of our actions in the aggregate: can the totality of what we are doing have an effect on climate? The answer is clearly that it is non-trivial. The question is, what is the magnitude of the effect. That should be the real argument.

I am still trying to understand how consensus could be related to the scientific method. ("Who exactly would determine what "truth" is if it is not by concensus[sic]?") The paradigm taught in science courses doesn't include anything about consensus; it could be most simply characterized as observation, hypothesis, prediction, and experiment. Archiving and sharing the results with the scientific community might be considered an addendum to the traditional understanding of the "scientific method."

Truth is truth, however: whether people believe it or not is a different question. Cast pearls if you like. The only thing I can figure out is that the writer was referring to the process of peer review and the internal politics of the scientific workplace, which, although part of what most scientists have to do today, are not included in everyone's definition of science. Certainly, if you have a theory contrary to what your "peers" believe, you may have difficulty getting your work published.